BUSINESS JACKET DESIGN: PREFERENCES

OF WORKING WOMEN

by

SEULHEE YOG, B.H.E., M.S.

A DISSERTATION

IN

CLOTHING, TEXTILES, AND MERCHANDISING

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Accepted

December, 1999
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation could not have been accomplished without the benefit

of cooperative and collaborative efforts of my research committee members

and their timely encouragement and support. Although language is an

insufficient means to convey my gratitude toward each member of the

committee, I would like to thank and acknowledge each member's contribution

to this research.

I am so grateful to my committee chair. Dr. Denise Bean, who provided

me with consistent help from the proposal development to the completion of

this research. Considering her responsibilities as a fashion design program

coordinator, a teacher, and a researcher, it could net have been easy to take

on the responsibilities of a doctoral committee chair and spend extra hours

working en this project. I will always appreciate her guidance and support for

this project, and passion for teaching and learning.

A warm and a very special thank you to Dr. JoAnn Shroyer, the

department chair, for taking en the responsibilities of committee co-chair when

she was tied up with ether departmental duties. I married and had a child

during my graduate work at Texas Tech University, and Dr. Shroyer has been

a great role model in balancing work and family. I will always appreciate her

mother-like guidance, encouragement, and support. I especially want to thank

her for the graduate assistantshlps and scholarships, which have been of

immense help for me to complete my doctoral studies.

A special acknowledgment goes to Dr. Shelley Harp. Her extensive

knowledge in retail management and merchandising, data collection

techniques, and research instrument evaluation has been of great assistance.

Her uncanny ability for detail minimized sampling and measurement error

during the data collection process. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Harp

and the Leather Research Institute for providing a graduate fellowship during

the summer of 1999. The fellowship covered a considerable portion of the

data collection expenses. I am also thankful to Jill Blacksteck at LRI for her

personal support.

My sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. Peter Westfall for his

interest in this project and willingness to serve as a committee member. His

insight and leadership during the initial development of the project and

contribution during data analysis has been imperative for the completion of the

project.

I am greatly in debt to my mother, Meenja Song, who always expected

more of me than I expected of myself. She set a career goal for me and

guided me into the career path I am in now. I also thank her for providing

personal and financial support, encouragement, and loving advice throughout

my study in the United States. Her role as a friend and a mentor has been

and always will be dear.

ill
 I deeply thank my husband, Dr. Jaewook Nam, for his timely support

and patience In putting up with me and taking care of our daughter, JoAnn, for

many nights and weekends without complaint. Without his help, I would never

have been able to accomplish this goal. I am very lucky to have him as my

lifelong companion. We will cherish all the memories we had at Texas Tech

as long as we live.

I could not have dene this feat without the smile of my little JoAnn, the

greatest gift from God. A big hug and kiss from her has been an essential

part of my daily life, bringing me much joy and happiness.

Finally, I am grateful to my Father in heaven for all of his gracious

blessings. As can be seen. He provided many people to shape and guide me.

I humbly dedicate this achievement to Him. Thank you!

IV
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

ABSTRACT , viii

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 5

Hypotheses 6

Limitations 8

Definition of Terms 8

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12

Women in the Workforce and Consumer Behavior 12

Profile of Women's Labor Force Participation 13

Impact of Women's Employment on Consumer Behavior 17

The Role of Clothing for Working Women 24

Aesthetics and Consumer Behavior 26

Consumer Aesthetic Evaluation 28

Fashion and Aesthetics 30

 Elements Fundamental to Aesthetic Quality of Apparel 31

Individual Differences and Aesthetic Preferences 35

Summary 43

III. METHODOLOGY 45

Proposed Research Model 45

Research Design 46

Selection of Sample 50

Research Instruments 51

Visual Stimuli 52

The Questionnaire 57

Pilot Test 60

Collection of Data 61

Variables for the Study 62

Statistical Analysis of Data 71

IV. RESULTS 72

Reliability of the Scales 74

Description of the Sample 76

Analysis of Hypotheses 108

Summary of the Findings 128

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 133

Summary of the Study 133

Summary of the Findings 135

vi
 Profile of the Respondents 135

Hypotheses Testing 138

Conclusions and Implications 139

Recommendations for Further Research 142

REFERENCES 143

APPENDICES 153

A. QUESTIONNAIRE 153

B. PRELIMINARY POSTCARD 165

C. MONEY ORDER ENTRY FORM 167

D. FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD 169

VII
 ABSTRACT

Consumer evaluation of apparel is believed to be affected by three

factors: the aesthetic quality of apparel, personal characteristics of the viewer,

and the environment. The majority of empirical studies document design

factors influencing the aesthetic quality of apparel. A limited number of

investigations have focused on individual characteristics of the viewer. Since

individual subjectivity may influence the aesthetic evaluation process, this

research investigated consumer characteristics in relation to aesthetic

preference of apparel, the business jacket in particular.

A national cross-section of 1,500 working women was drawn for the

study through a random sampling technique by National Demographics &

Lifestyles. Nine hypotheses were formulated to address the relationships

between consumer design preference and: (a) design attributes, (b) personal

characteristics, (c) psycho-social identity, (d) job-speclfic-situational

characteristics, and (e) physical characteristics. The research instrument

consisted of two parts: visual stimuli and a self-administered questionnaire.

Visual stimuli were 18 black-and-white computer-generated drawings of

business jackets developed to measure design preference. The questionnaire

assessed design attributes and preferences utilizing Likert-type scales

adapted from previous investigations. Questions were developed to

determine physical characteristics, demographics, and consumer

viii
characteristics. Dillman's mail survey technique was utilized for collection of

the research data. The final data base was comprised of 265 female

respondents who wore business jackets to work at least once a week.

Significance was identified through the use of repeated measures of

analysis of variance with an unstructured covariance matrix, as fit by PROG

MIXED of SAS/STAT®. The denominator degrees of freedom for conducting

the F-tests of hypotheses used Satterthwaite Approximation.

Jacket length, pattern, silhouette, neckline drop, and collar styles were

found to be significant. The significant interactions were: jacket length and

pattern, jacket length and collar style, jacket pattern and silhouette, jacket

pattern and neckline drop, jacket silhouette and collar style, jacket neckline

drop and collar. None of the personal characteristics were found to be

significant. However, three interactions were significant: age and jacket

pattern, age and jacket silhouette, and ethnicity and jacket length. Ability to

modify self-presentation and overall self-monitoring were also found to be

significant including two interactions: self-monitoring and jacket collar style,

and ability to modify self-presentation and jacket collar. None of the job-

speclfic-situational characteristics or interactions were found to be significant.

Figure type was significant. The interactions between figure type and jacket

silhouette, figure type and jacket neckline drop, and figure type and jacket

collar style were significant.

IX
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Labor Force Participation Rates of Married Women with

Husband Present: 1960 to 1996 (by percentage) 14

2. Labor Force Participation Rates of Married Women by Age of

Children: 1960 to 1996 (by percentage) 14

3. Illustration of Possible Jacket Design Combinations Using 5

Attributes with 3 Levels 54

4. Eighteen Jacket Design Combinations Formulated Using

Orthogonal Fractional Factorial Design Catalog Developed by
Hahn and Shapiro (1966) 55

5. Correlation Among Five Design Attributes Using 18 Jacket

Design Combinations by 3^ Orthogonal Fractional Factorial
Experimental Design 56

6. Comparison of Instrument Reliability of Current Study to

Peterson (1994) 75

7. Personal Characteristics of Working Women 78

8. Business Jacket Purchase and Consumption Behavior 89

9. Psycho-Social Identity 96

10. Job-Specific Situational Characteristics of Working Women 100

11. Job-Specific Situational Characteristics of Working Women:
Corporate Culture 101

12. Physical Profile of Working Women 104

13. Means and Standard Deviation of Business Jacket Design

Preference 106

14. Summary of Canonical Correlation Analysis 107

 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Sproles' General Model of the Consumer's Fashion Adoption

Process 47

2. Proposed Research Model: Consumer Aesthetic Preference

in Relation to Personal Characteristics, Psycho-Social
Identity, Job-Specific Situational Characteristics, and

Physical Profile 48

3. Hypotheses and Variables 73

4. Age Distribution of the Respondents 81

5. Educational Attainment of the Respondents 82

6. Marital Status of the Respondents 83

7. Employment Status of the Respondents 84

8. Career Orientation of the Respondents 84

9. Presence of Career Objectivity of the Respondents 85

10. Occupation of the Respondents 85

11. Geographic Location of the Respondents 86

12. Ethnic Background of the Respondents 86

13. Household Size of the Respondents 87

14. Number of Children of the Respondents 87

15. Financial Contribution of the Respondents to the Total
Household Income 88

16. Frequency of Wearing Business Jacket Per Week 92

17. Season During Which Business Jackets Are Worn Most

Frequently by the Respondents 92

XI
18. Number of Jackets In Inventory 93

19. Apparel Items Most Frequently Worn with Jackets by the

Respondents 93

20. Garment Set with which Business Jacket is Most Frequently

Purchased by the Respondents 94

21. Preferred Retail Store Type for Purchasing Professional

Apparel by the Respondents 94

22. Payment Type Used for Purchasing Professional Apparel by

the Respondents 95

23. Percentage of the Total Household Income Spent on

Professional Apparel Annually by the Respondents 95

24. Illustration of Canonical Correlation 109

25. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Length and Jacket

pattern 114

26. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Length and Jacket

Collar Style 114

27. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Pattern and Jacket

Silhouette 116

28. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Pattern and Jacket

Neckline Drop 116

29. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Silhouette and Jacket

Collar Style 118

30. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Neckline Drop and

Jacket Collar Style 118

31. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Pattern and Age 121

32. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Silhouette and Age 121
33. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Length and Ethnicity 124

XII
34. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Collar Style and
Self-Monitoring 124

35. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Collar Style and Ability
to Modify Self-Presentation 129

36. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Silhouette and Figure

Type 129

37. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Neckline Drop and

Figure Type 130

38. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Collar Style and Figure
Type 130

XIII
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The number of women entering the work force has steadily increased

over the last two decades. Since 1980, the proportion of working women

(51.2%) has exceeded non-working women (Norwood, 1980). In 1996,

approximately sixty percent of all women sixteen years of age and over were

labor force participants (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997). As more women

join the work force, many popular press and empirical studies have addressed

this phenomenon in regard to clothing practices, perception of professional

image, clothing consumption and information search patterns, shopping

orientations, daily wardrobe selection, and apparel evaluation criteria of

employed women (Cassill & Drake, 1987; Dillon, 1980; Ericksen & Sirgy,

1985; Forsythe, Butler, & Schaefer, 1990; Forsythe, Drake & Cox, Jr, 1984;

Kelley & Anselmo, 1977; Kelley, Blouin, Glee, Sweat & Arledge, 1982;

Kundel, 1976; Rabolt & Drake, 1984-85; Rabolt & Drake, 1985; Shim & Drake,

1988; Solomon & Douglas, 1985; Sweat & Zentner, 1985; Thurston, Lennon,

& Clayton, 1990).

The focus of this study was to assess the differences in business jacket

design preferences of working women. In addition, relationships among four

types of characteristics were investigated in relation to the design differences:

(1) personal, (2) psycho-social, (3) job-specific situational, and (4) physical.

The business jacket was chosen as a sole representation of business attire,

because the jacket has been considered the hallmark of American business

women, serving the same functions for women as business suits do for men

(Molloy, 1996). According to the survey conducted by Molloy, a majority of

business men and women (93% and 94%, respectively), no matter what they

themselves were wearing, assumed that women wearing jackets outranked

women without jackets.

Today the workplace is more informal. A climate of informality is

viewed as central to corporate culture. Proponents claim that such a climate

can boost employee morale, creativity, and even overall performance

(David, 1988; Deirdre, 1998). The jacket has easily joined the current trend in

business casual attire due to its versatility and the ease of putting it on and

taking it off.

Traditionally, clothing has been viewed as a utilitarian product that has

evolved into a medium for expressing individual creativity and taste as well as

conforming to the preferences of a society or reference group

(Eckman, 1992). The majority of research on clothing has been directed at

identifying characteristics of clothing popular at various points in time, and

studying the influence of social, psychological, and economic factors on

clothing choices. Since Holbrook (1981) and Sproles (1981b) first suggested
that research should focus on aesthetic attributes of products (e.g., color, line,

silhouette, or fabric) and how aesthetic preferences for clothing are formed,

many researchers have specifically studied how consumers evaluate design

elements and how these elements interact to form a complete image of a

garment in the consumer's mind (Eckman, 1992, 1997; Eckman, Damhorst &

Kadolph, 1990; Holbrook, 1986; Holbrook & Dixon, 1985; Morganosky &

Postlewait, 1989). These studies confirmed the notion that aesthetic

attributes are key factors in consumption behavior and are a significant

influence in the selection and purchase of apparel.

An understanding of consumer aesthetic preference is essential for

efficient communication among consumers and decision makers in the textile

complex. First, consumers can benefit from such knowledge by being able to

purchase clothes that best meet their needs and wants with minimal

expenditure of time, money, effort, and psychological costs. Second, the

identification and description of female consumers' preferred styles can help

designers and retailers match consumers' needs and wants with regard to

design. Third, understanding the consumers' style evaluation process may

also help designers and retailers develop strategies to facilitate the

acceptance of designs and product assortments. Finally, retailers can make

effective, economical, and efficient buying decisions by knowing generally

preferred design characteristics such as particular colors, silhouettes, or lines.

 statement of the Problem

Clothing plays an important role in women's lives, especially working

women. It not only serves a protective purpose but meets a variety of social

and psychological needs. Generally, people have a strong desire for

self-enhancement. Appearance, including Individual body characteristics and

clothing, affects the way Individuals feel about themselves. Appearance also

projects an Individual's self-image (Humphrey, Klaasen & Creekmore, 1971;

Kersch, 1984). Clothing that projects a professional image may also reinforce

a woman's self-confidence and feeling of competence in the job, thus leading

to improved work performance (Solomon & Douglas, 1985).

The framework, proposed by Sproles (1979), illustrates the consumers'

fashion adoption process, modeling how fashion-oriented consumers make

decisions based on the information-processing paradigm. Information-

processing paradigm refers to a systematic process by which a stimulus

(e.g., fashion products) is received, interpreted, stored in memory, and later

retrieved (Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1993). Sproles' model of fashion

adoption process, along with other early theoretical works on fashion,

provides a good base for the development of fashion theory (Eckman, 1997).

Several researchers (Eckman, 1992/1997; Holbrook, 1981; Sproles,

1979) have suggested that preference for a fashion object such as clothing,

results from a complex combination of factors. Within the fashion object.

preference may be formed by each design element that creates the object

(e.g., color, silhouette, line, and fabrication). When consumer behavior is

analyzed during the fashion process, interacting forces surrounding

consumers, such as consumer demographics, psycho-social motivation,

consumer physical profiles, and job-specific characteristics, may affect

consumer preferences. Although many researchers agree on the notion that

aesthetic attributes are key factors in consumer consumption behavior

including apparel purchase and selection, it is not conclusive which factors are

the most influential on the consumer's decision-making process. Design

attributes such as line, color, silhouette, and fabric, are important, but

consumer characteristics such as psycho-social motivation and physical

characteristics are important as well. Therefore, research on consumer

aesthetic evaluation process and formation of aesthetic preference should

include both product characteristics and consumer characteristics.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to assess the differences in the business

jacket design preferences of working women. In addition the study

investigated whether, and to what degree, selected variables affected the

business jacket design preferences of working women. The objectives of the

study were:
 1. to assess business jacket design details (e.g., line, silhouette, fabric,

style, etc.) that affect aesthetic evaluation of working women in clothing

choices;

2. to assess personal characteristics (e.g., age, marital status,

education, income, clothing expenditure, ethnicity, and occupation, etc.) that

affect the business jacket design preferences of working women;

3. to assess psycho-social characteristics (e.g., self-confidence,

perceived importance of clothing, self-monitoring, and employment

orientation, etc.) that affect the business jacket design preferences of working

women;

4. to identify physical characteristics (e.g., body weight, body height,

body silhouette, eye color, and hair color, etc.) that affect the business jacket

design preferences of working women;

5. to identify the job-speclfic-situational characteristics (e.g., visibility to

superiors and public. Implicit dress code, length of time in career, etc.) that

affect the business jacket design preferences of working women.

Hypotheses

In order to accomplish the objectives of the research, the following

hypotheses were generated:

Hia. Jacket length affects the subjects' business jacket design preference.
Hib. Jacket pattern affects the subjects' business jacket design preference.

Hie. Jacket silhouette affects the subjects' business jacket design

preference.

Hid. Jacket neckline drop affects the subjects' business jacket design

preference.

Hie. Jacket collar style affects the subjects' business jacket design

preference.

H2. The personal characteristics of the subjects affect the subjects'

business jacket design preference.

H3. The psycho-social characteristics of the subjects affect the subjects'

business jacket design preference.

H4. The job-specific-situatienal characteristics of the subjects affect the

subjects' business jacket design preference.

H5. The physical characteristics of the subjects affect the subjects'

business jacket design preference.

 Limitations

This research was based on the following limitations:

1. In judging the attractiveness of jacket designs, subjects evaluated

the given alternatives in terms of design elements, and integrated visual

evaluations of each design element. Subjects' preferences were based on

complex tradeoffs among the alternatives.

2. The visual presentation of jacket designs to subjects was not

identical but similar to the decision-making environment of the market place in

which consumers' actual evaluation takes place.

3. The jacket design details selected in the study did not include

infinite numbers of all possible jacket design combinations but did represent

available alternatives in the current retail market.

4. The term "career women" or "working women" used in this study

was limited to working women who wear business jackets to work at least

once a week.

Definition of Terms

This research was based on the following definitions:

Aesthetic Evaluation: Appraisal of aesthetic quality of a product

(Flore & Kimie, 1997).

8
 Aesthetic Experience: "The sensitive selection or appreciation of

formal, expressive, or symbolic qualities of the product or environment,

providing non-instrumental benefits that result in pleasure or satisfaction"

(Fiore & KimIe, 1997, p. 4).

Aesthetic Preference: Comparative evaluation of aesthetic quality of a

product or environment against others. Favorable judgment of one aesthetic

product or environment over other options (Fiore & KimIe, 1997).

Career-Oriented Working Women: Women who consider their work a

career. Women in management, executive sales or other positions where

there is the desire to advance one's career (Rabolt, 1984). In this study, the

terms, career women, business women, and professional women have been

used interchangeably.

Clothing Fashion: "A clothing fashion is a style of dress that is

temporarily adopted by a discernible proportion of members of a social group,

because that chosen style is perceived to be socially appropriate for the time

and situation" (Sproles, 1979, p.5).

Clothing Involvement: A person's perceived relevance of clothing

based on inherent needs, values, and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985).

Consumer Behavior: All activities involved in acquiring, using, and

disposing of products (Holbrook, 1987).

 Design Elements: Visual definers that provide perceptual definition to

parts of the visual form (DeLong, 1987). A design is a unique combination of

silhouette, construction, fabric, and details that distinguishes a single object

from all other objects of the same class (Sproles, 1979). In this study, design

attributes and aesthetic attributes have been used interchangeably.

Diffusion: The spread of an innovation within and across social

systems. It is a process in which many people decide to adopt an innovation

(Rogers, 1962).

Implicit Dress Code: Dress expectations that management sets by

implication rather than by explicit writing (Rabolt, 1984).

Information Processing Paradigm: refers to a systematic process by

which a stimulus is received, interpreted, stored in memory, and later

retrieved. The information processing paradigm can be broken down into five

basic stages: exposure to a stimulus, attention to the incoming stimulus,

comprehension of the stimulus, acceptance of the stimulus, and retention of

the stimulus (Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1993).

Information Search Pattern: refers to consumers' pattern of gathering

information about products. There are five types of information search

patterns: print-oriented searcher, the audio-visual oriented searcher, the store

intensive searcher, the professional advice searcher, and the pal advice

searcher (Shim & Drake, 1988).

10
 "Just a Job" Working Women: Women who consider their work "just a

job."

Length of Time in Career: The length in months or years an individual

has worked in a particular career.

Perceived Importance of Clothing: The degree to which a career

woman believes one's dress operates in positive ways to help advance one's

career or help establish good working relations with others (Rabolt, 1984).

Self-Monitoring: Sensitivity to the self-presentation of self and others,

and use of social cues as behavioral guidelines.

Self-Confidence in Career Dressing: Confidence in one's ability to

dress professionally and according to the given business situation.

Style: A style is a characteristic mode of presentation that typifies

several similar objects of the same class (Sproles, 1979).

Textile Complex: refers to "the industry chain from fiber, to fabric,

through end uses of apparel, interior furnishings, and industrial products"

(Dickerson, 1999, p. 18).

Working Women: The operational definition used for this study included

both career-oriented working women and just-a-job working women who wear

business jackets to work at least once a week.

11
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of literature relevant to the study. The

areas reviewed in this section include: (1) women in the work force and

consumer behavior, (2) aesthetics and consumer behavior, and (3) the

summary.

Women in the Workforce and Consumer Behavior

The proportion of women in the labor force have increased dramatically

during the twentieth century, and factors affecting labor force participation

rates have continually changed. Particularly, married women have entered

the labor force in greater numbers since 1970. Women who have never been

married have traditionally had higher employment rates and continue to do so.

In fact, the employment rate of single women currently approximates the

employment rate for men. The dramatic growth of employment rates for

married women has also steadily increased. This increase has been

associated with women's increasing educational attainment and employment

opportunities, an increasing demand for services provided by traditionally

female dominated occupations, changes in family and life patterns, and

changing social norms (Lazer & Smallwood, 1977; Mandelson, 1996).

12
 Profile of Women's Labor Force Participation

Before 1900, women made up less than twenty percent of the civilian

labor force, but In 1996 approximately sixty percent of all women sixteen

years of age and over were labor force participants (U.S. Bureau of the

Census, 1997) (refer to Table 1). The most notable changes in the labor force

during this century have been the increasing participation of married women.

Since the 1960s, the labor force participation of younger married women has

increased dramatically (refer to Table 1). In addition, married women with

young children have more than tripled labor force participation to nearly sixty

percent (refer to Table 2).

Goldin (1990) stated that marriage itself has been the determining

factor of women's labor force status for most of U.S. history, because the

majority of women have dropped out of the labor force upon marriage. Some

researchers assume that the proportion of working wives has a lot to do with

the presence and age of children at home. However, statistics do not clearly

support this assumption. Several researchers have hypothesized that the

amount of the husband's earnings has been, in fact, a significant determinant

of whether a wife has been in the labor force (Lazer & Smallwood, 1977;

Bartos, 1977). However, Lazer and Smallwood (1977) suggested that the

determining factors most directly related to female labor force participation has

been higher educational attainment and growing occupational demand for

13
Table 1. Labor Force Participation Rates of Married Women with Husband
Present: 1960 to 1996 (by percentage)

Year Participatior ) Rate by Percentage

Total 16-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65 and

years years years years years over

1960 31.9 27.2 31.7 28.8 37.2 36.0 6.7

1970 40.5 37.8 47.9 38.8 46.8 44.0 7.3
1980 49.8 49.3 61.4 58.8 61.8 46.9 7.3
1990 58.4 49.5 66.1 69.6 74.0 56.5 8.5
1996 61.2 48.6 66.0 71.7 75.8 63.7 9.0

Table 2. Labor Force Participation Rates of Married Women by Age of

Children: 1960 to 1996 (by percentage)

Year Married Married Children 6 Children

Women Women with to 17 only under 6
Children

1960 30.5 27.6 39.0 18.6

1970 40.8 39.7 49.2 30.3
1980 50.1 54.1 61.7 45.1
1990 58.2 66.3 73.6 58.9
1996 61.1 70.0 76.7 62.7

14
females. Married women with children between the ages of six and

seventeen had a labor force participation rate of over seventy percent by

1996, negating association between the presence and age of children at

home and the labor force participation of married women (U.S. Bureau of the

Census, 1997).

Nonetheless, according to Mandelson (1996), reasons behind the

remarkable changes of female status in the labor force has not been clearly

identified. Researchers are uncertain whether related factors are the cause or

effect of women's increasing labor force participation. Mandelson agreed on

the notions made by previous researchers. First, higher educational

attainment has been associated with increasing women's labor force

participation. The more education a woman has, the more likely she is to be

in the labor force. This is due to the fact that one can recognize higher returns

of one's educational Investment throughout increasing life spans. Based on

the statistics reported by the U.S. Bureau of Census (1997), the number of

women who joined the labor force upon completion of four or more years of

college education has increased more than twenty percent since 1970.

Approximately sixty-one percent of females joined the labor force in 1970

upon completion of four or more years of college education, while more than

eighty percent of females joined in 1990. Even if it is not certain higher

education attainment is the cause or the effect, there is a strong positive

15
relationship between educational attainment and the increasing labor force

participation of women.

Second, the demand for workers in service, clerical, and other

white-collar areas, which tend to be predominantly female, has increased. It

is natural for women to join the work force when there are more traditionally

female dominant jobs available with less competition from male counterparts.

Third, although cause and effect are not clear, demographic changes have

also been associated with increasing labor force participation of women.

According to Blau and Ferber (1991), more men and women have married at

an older age, and consequently, have children at an older age. The birth rate

has declined over years, resulting in a smaller number of children per family.

As a result, more women stay in the labor force for a longer period of time.

Finally, traditional employers' perceptions and social norms regarding

appropriate behavior for single and married women have changed in the labor

force. Because women have quit their jobs upon marriage or pregnancy

during most of the 20^^ century, the working woman's status has been viewed

as temporary or marginal. Employers have been less likely to hire and invest

in training female workers. However, the women's movement in the 1960s

and 1970s and public policies such as the Equal pay Act of 1963, the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, Affirmative Action of 1965, and Title IX (Education

Amendments of 1972) have forced institutional and social change and

16
protected women from discrimination in education and the labor force

(Mandelson, 1996).

Impact of Women's Employment on Consumer Behavior

Bartos (1977/1982) called the demographic and social change of

women "a quiet revolution." Because of the increasing proportion of women in

the work force, marketers have identified the group as a target and considered

this in product development, product positioning, and communications

strategies. However, to better understand the impact of work force

participation on women as consumers, one must understand the changes in

the qualities of women who work, not simply the increased quantity of working

women over the last thirty years (Bartos, 1977).

Many researchers have addressed the consumer behavior of working

women juxtaposed to non-working women. Researchers have segmented the

female population into separate sub-groups to acknowledge each sub-group's

specific characteristics and to provide different perspectives. For example,

Joyce and Guiltinan (1978) focused on professional women, separating the

group from general working women. The research compared the shopping

orientation of professional working women as opposed to non-professional

working women. The researchers argued that professional working-women

have great potential as a marketing target. The proportion of professional

17
working-women has grown, and they currently make more money than

non-professional working women. In addition, professional working-women

have the tendency to marry professional men which results in increased

discretionary income.

Bartos (1976/1977) categorized the general female population into four

sub-groups: career-oriented working women, just-a-job working women,

plan-to-work housewives, and stay-at-home housewives. Bartos proposed

that consumers behaved differently depending on their employment

orientation. Several studies support the notion. Cassill and Drake (1987)

found that the two categories, working women and non-working women, were

less accurate than the four categories created by Bartos. Cassill and Drake

also reported that the employment orientation of working women significantly

Influenced individual women's lifestyles and apparel evaluation. The

employment orientation of female consumers influenced the way women

spent their money and time. In addition, the evaluative criteria used in social

apparel purchases differed based on women's employment orientation.

Bartos also characterized career-oriented working women as cautious,

well-planning, and brand-loyal consumers, housewives as economy-minded

consumers, and just-a-job working women as the most experimental

consumers.

18
 Reynolds, Crask, and Wells (1977) employed a traditional versus

modern dichotomy of women. They found that most women categorized as

modern types worked outside home, while only twenty-six percent of women

classified as traditionalists held jobs. McCall (1977) suggested the need to

segment married working women from general working women, naming this

sub-group, work-wife. She characterized the work-wife as a consumer prone

to convenience, quality, assortment, and time constraints.

A considerable amount of research has been conducted dividing

female consumers into different segments to assess the different quantitative

and qualitative dimensions of working women. There is no doubt that working

women comprise a significant consumer segment in the U.S. market.

However, working women could be further segmented into sub-groups using

classification guidelines based on occupational divergence, such as clothing

design preference, self-confidence, or job features rather than employment

orientation. Jenkins (1973) and Cassill and Drake (1987) found that women

employed in higher occupational levels placed more importance on the

suitability and appropriateness of the garments they purchase than women in

lower occupational levels. Therefore, segmenting career-oriented working

women by occupational levels provides different perspectives of this

consumer group for apparel designers, manufacturers, and retailers to use in

product development and product advertising. In addition, gaining further

19
insight Into career-oriented professional women is necessary, because this

consumer group is found to differ significantly from housewives and women

with nonprofessional jobs in terms of shopping attitudes, activities, and

behavior.

Changes in Financial Practices of Working Women

Women's employment status has impacted their financial activities.

First, working women have been more likely to have savings accounts,

checking accounts, and credit cards than non-working women, although

working women have not felt as secure as non-working women regarding

government savings bonds. Second, among working women, employment

orientation has impacted financial activities. Career-oriented working women

have dominated financial activities when compared to just-a-job working

women. Career-oriented working women more likely have their own savings

accounts, checking accounts, credit cards, and investments, whereas

just-a-job working women are less likely to have such financial accoutrements.

(Bartos, 1977).

Working women have been more likely to have a driver's license, have

two or more cars in their garages, buy their own cars, purchase luggage, use

travelers checks, travel in the United States by airplane, and stay at a hotel.

Career-oriented working women have been the most likely to make their own

20
purchase decision for cars when compared to just-a-job working women,

plan-to-work housewives, and stay-at-home housewives. Among all married

women, married working women without children at home are the best

customers for travel services and products. The combination of available

income from employment and no children at home has allowed women to

travel more frequently (Bartos, 1977; Reynolds, Crask, & Wells, 1977).

With the rising labor force participation by women, particularly married

women, marketers and researchers have made enormous efforts to

understand and address the needs of this particular consumer segment. As

women join the work force they have spent more on clothing for work. In

1988, working women accounted for seventy percent of female apparel sales

in the U.S. (Kantrowitz, Witherspoon, & King, 1988). Depending on the work

force environment, women may have spent money that they would not have

spent othen^/ise, to obtain attire that is acceptable for work. Fortunately,

working women have had access to additional income that can be spent on

themselves. Peacock (1980) stated that women making $10,000 per year

spent more on clothes than non-salaried wives of men making $40,000 to

$50,000 a year.

On the contrary, U.S. News & World Report ("Designing for Dollars,"

1994) noted that as baby boomers approach their 50s, many have shifted

their financial resources to children's college education rather than apparel.

21
In addition, more working women in the work force has meant a time

constraint on consumers' lifestyles that has directly affected time spent on

shopping. Today's consumers have also looked for value as well as price.

Value-for-price has replaced fashion as the prime concern for price-conscious

consumers. The results of a survey administered by Glamour magazine in

1994 (cited In U.S. News & World Report. 1994), clearly illustrated the shift of

consumers' concern from fashion to value-for-price. The results indicated that

thirty-four percent of Glamour readers increased shopping at off-price stores

like Marshalls, T.J. Maxx, and Filene's Basement. In fact, the amount of

money spent by consumers on apparel as a percentage of income dropped

from 8.1 percent in 1960 to 6.1 percent in 1980 and 5.3 percent in 1993.

Overall, the increase in working females has also caused an increase

in available income and purchasing power. Research has established that

women's employment ratios increase aggregate household clothing

expenditures when income and other variables are fixed (Hafstrom & Dunsing,

1965; Dardis, Derrick, & Lehfeld, 1981; Abdel-Ghany & Foster, 1982; Bellante

& Foster, 1984; Cassill & Drake, 1987; DeWeese, 1987; Norton, & Park, 1987;

DeWeese & Norton, 1991).

22
Apparel Shopping Orientation of Working Women

McCall (1977) identified that married working women have been more

likely to accept self-service, shop in the evenings, be more price conscious,

purchase in a department store rather than a specialty shop, and use the

same store for all their clothing purchases. McCall's findings suggest that the

convenience of one-stop shopping has been of prime importance to working

women, and flattering styles of clothing and appropriateness for work have

been far more important to working women than price. Older and more

experienced female consumers have been more interested in directed and

focused time shopping for apparel. They have expressed greater interest in

using catalogs, buying agents, or other shopping services (Solomon, 1987).

According to Rabolt (1984), career women's wardrobe selection has

been motivated and influenced by somewhat different forces than women's

regular fashion dressing. Rabolt found that career dressing has been

influenced by sources closest to the career setting (i.e., work associates) In

addition to retail sources (i.e., displays in business clothing departments).

Shim and Drake (1988) reported that working women were different in

their information search patterns for the selection of business wardrobe. The

findings indicated five types of information search patterns: the print-oriented

searcher, the audio-visual oriented searcher, the store intensive searcher, the

professional advice searcher, and the pal advice searcher. The diversified

23
information processing view of consumer choice Implied various marketing

strategies that could be used for employment apparel advertising and

promotion.

The Role of Clothing for Working Women

Clothing has been regarded as one of the basic consumer goods and

services. In conjunction with food and housing. Clothing has been an

influential factor In a job situation, and appropriate attire has been important to

job success. Many researchers have found that a person's positive

appearance results In favorable inferences about the person (Johnson,

Nagasawa, & Peters, 1977; Lapitsky & Smith, 1981; Johnson & Roach-

Higgins, 1987a, 1987b; Workman & Johnson, 1989a, 1989b; Lennon, 1990).

When an individual has formed favorable inferences about the personality

characteristics of another person based on that person's clothing, the

Individual also may have formed favorable Inferences about other

nonobservable aspects of the person's life. In addition, researchers have

reported one's appearance has affected the formation of one's self-concept

and self-confidence. Clothing has been manipulated to arouse one's feelings

of self-confidence (Horn & Gurel, 1981).

According to Bixler (1997), appearances counted, not only in the

formation of first impressions but also in ongoing interactions. Bixler reported

24
a research study conducted by sociollnguist, Albert Mehrabian, in which

fifty-five percent of communication messages came from the speaker's

appearance and body language, followed by vocal tone (38%) and words

(7%). Bixler also stated that appearance counted for starting salary and

career advancement, and that job applicants with effective business

appearances were offered eight to twenty percent higher starting salaries.

Many times, the workplace environment has operated against women,

having different expectations for women as opposed to men. (Molloy, 1977).

For men, there has been minimal variation in business attire. An acceptable

business wardrobe has been more determined, providing a reliable

barometer. On the contrary, women have not had the same benefit of a

business uniform (Dillon, 1980). Johnson, Crutsinger, and Workman (1994)

reported that female managers, who appeared masculine by wearing either a

necktie or a scarf, received positive evaluations with respect to managerial

competencies and promotability. The researchers suggested that working

women should adopt some level of masculinity in appearance to communicate

professional equality to men. However, masculinity in appearance portrayed

by working women should be consistent with the feminine gender role.

25
 Aesthetics and Consumer Behavior

Traditionally, humans have produced utilitarian goods that meet basic

human needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter. However, the human

desire for self-actualization has further created goods that are aesthetically

pleasing as well as utilitarian. Aesthetics originated as a philosophical

discipline and an endeavor to understand human motivation for creating

beautiful objects.

Fiore, KimIe, and Moreno (1996a/1996b/1996c) surveyed aesthetics

literature inside and outside the field of textiles and clothing. They

summarized five categories that represent multi-dimensional aspects of

aesthetics found in the literature. The categories were: creator, creative

process, object, appreciation process, and appreciator. The creator referred

to an individual who develops an aesthetic object. This category incorporated

psychological and socio-cultural factors of the creator. The creative process

referred to the internal processes that take place within the creator during

development of an aesthetic object. This category included the logical and

unconscious mental components of the creator.

The object referred to the formal, expressive, and referential elements

of the physical object. Formal aspects of the object were physical

characteristics such as color, proportion, and complexity. Formal aspects of

the aesthetic object were of primary Importance in the consumption process

26
for many apparel products (Eckman, Damhorst, & Kadolph, 1990). Formal

qualities of the object and interactions among formal qualities, apparel, and

the body were the underlying evaluative criteria used in the apparel

consumption process (Eckman et al., 1990; Littrell, 1980; Morganosky, 1984).

Expressive aspects of the object referred to the feelings and emotions

emitted by the object (Kose, 1984), while referential aspects of the object

referred to the symbolic nature of the object. The expressiveness of the

object contributed to the pleasingness of the object ("What Makes," 1980),

while the referential characteristics of the object conveyed information about

external realities or ways to attend to the worid.

The appreciation process focused on the internal processes that take

place during the aesthetic response to an object. This process included the

cognitive, emotional, and psychological components of aesthetic experience.

The appreciator referred to an individual who views the object. The

appreciator category included psychological and socio-cultural factors of an

individual Involved in the appreciation process. Sensitivity to aesthetic

features, preference and evaluation of aesthetic objects were Included in the

appreciator category (Fiore, KimIe, & Moreno, 1996a).

27
 Consumer Aesthetic Evaluation

Aesthetic aspects of apparel were key factors that determine the

consumer's selection and purchase of apparel (Eckman, Damhorst, &

Kadolph, 1990). Fiore and Damhorst (1992) reported that aesthetic aspects

of apparel were related to perceived quality and affect consumer satisfaction

with apparel products. Fiore and KimIe (1997) summarized three important

contributors of consumer aesthetic experience: apparel product, body, and the

environment. They suggested that apparel professionals should consider

these three contributors in assessing consumer aesthetic experience.

According to Fiore and KimIe (1997), during the apparel purchase

decision-making process, consumers evaluated aesthetic features of apparel,

such as color, fabric, or silhouette in terms of their usage and organization.

During the process, consumers were simultaneously exposed to apparel and

the environment in which it is presented. Consumer purchase decisions were

influenced by factors other than apparel design elements, such as special

promotions, unique store displays, lighting, and models used in advertising.

Therefore, in assessing consumer aesthetic evaluation of apparel, aesthetic

quality should be investigated in conjunction with the environment in which

apparel is presented.

The interaction between apparel and body were also considered,

because the effect of apparel on the body was important to consumers when

28
evaluating the product. Consumers judged the reinforcing effect of apparel on

their own bodies and also made assumptions about this effect based upon the

images found in promotional environments. According to Flore and KimIe

(1997), consumer satisfaction with apparel depended on the aesthetic appeal

of the interaction between the body and the apparel. Eckman, Damhorst, and

Kadolph (1989) reported that the aesthetic aspects of apparel products

determined what consumers tried on, but the interaction of clothing on the

body determined consumers' final purchase decision.

Consumer aesthetic evaluation has been affected by several other

factors. First, the desired or expected benefits sought by consumers has

affected aesthetic evaluation (Fiore & KimIe, 1997). Benefits considered

important in the purchase decision process have varied among consumers

and have differed across product category (Bell, Holbrook, & Solomon, 1991;

Holbrook 1994). Second, aesthetic value attached to the product has affected

aesthetic evaluation. Morganosky (1984) found positive association between

aesthetic value and the price consumers were willing pay. Finally, the

intended use of the product also affected aesthetic evaluation (Bell et al.,

1991).

29
 Fashion and Aesthetics

Although researchers have argued about the origins of dress and

adornment, many believe that, like food and shelter, the earilest garments

were developed out of necessity for protection. When the physical needs

were met, creation was manifested in adornment. Thereafter, many people

used clothing as a medium to express self and beauty. Therefore, the

discipline of aesthetics has been applied to the creation and the selection of

fashionable clothing (Eckman, 1992).

The traditional discipline of aesthetics has been concerned with the

creation of artistic objects, for instance the organization of artistic details

(e.g., line, shape, and color). The focus of fashion analysis has involved the

design of fashion objects, such as clothing or fashion accessories. The

difference between aesthetics and fashion analysis has been that fashion is

affected by time. Sproles (1979) defined fashion as a way of behaving that is

temporarily adopted by a discernible portion of members of a social group

because that behavior is perceived to be appropriate for the time and

situation. In his study of clothing fashion, the term fashion was used to

indicate both the clothing and the processes of consumer behavior linked to

clothing.

In the study of aesthetics, the evaluation of an object has not changed

as much as it has in fashion analysis. Therefore, when aesthetics theory has

30
been applied to a fashion object, fashion has been viewed as a process as

well as an object.

Elements Fundamental to Aesthetic Quality of Apparel

In order to understand how aesthetics has influenced fashion-oriented

purchase decisions, consideration has been given to the design elements

fundamental to apparel. DeLong (1987) referred to design elements as visual

definers that provide perceptual definition to parts of the visual form. The work

done by Dondls (1983) and Feldman (1973) has implied that an individual's

interpretation of visual image is influenced by the characteristics and

organization of design elements such as color, texture, unity, and proportion.

Sproles (1981b) has included color, line, silhouette, and design details such

as embellishments and texture. In a study of female evaluation of garment

attractiveness, Wagner, Anderson, and Ettenson (1990) reported jacket

length, silhouette of bottom (e.g., skirt or pants), pattern of bottom, pattern of

jacket, silhouette of jacket, color, and jacket details to be important factors.

Just as individual design elements have affected aesthetic evaluation

of garments, the relationship of one design element to others may have

influenced the consumer purchase decision-making process. Thus, the

number, size, and location of design elements may have been important

modifiers of aesthetic evaluation (DeLong, 1987). Eckman (1992) found the

31
interaction of jacket silhouette with jacket pattern, color, and neckline shape to

be significant in consumer aesthetic judgment of apparel. This interaction of

jacket silhouette with jacket pattern was the highest, dominating consumer

aesthetic evaluation. The Interaction effect was greater than the main effects

for any single design element.

The findings of Eckman (1992) were in agreement with the notion

made by Holbrook and Dixon (1985), that the evaluation of fashion is a

gestalt-like phenomenon. Consumer aesthetic evaluation of apparel resulted

from the interrelationships among design elements.

Color

Color was the first thing that a consumer noticed about a garment

(Tate, 1989). According to Sproles (1981B), color was the second important

design element in the consumer decision-making process. Sproles believed

silhouette to be the primary element influential to consumers and noted that

once consumers chose a silhouette they found attractive, color was the design

element that dominated consumer decisions regarding clothing. When

deciding whether to accept or reject a style, consumers depended mostly on

their evaluations of color. Eckman, Damhorst, and Kadolph (1990) reported

color to be the most important aesthetic criteria for apparel preference. Fiore

and KimIe (1997) pointed out that color may have the greatest impact on our

32
perception, because we recognize color simultaneously with form.

Manufacturers could change colors readily, and new colors can stimulate

sales.

Line

According to Davis (1996), line referred to the edge or the outline of a

garment and the style lines that divide the space within a garment. Line

variations created physical and psychological effects and visual illusions that

influenced figure size, shape, and dimensions. The height of a line

lengthened or shortened a figure, while the width of a line can make a figure

seem thinner or heavier. Line leads the eye and has been used in apparel

design to reinforce the theme of a garment (Tate, 1989). Preferences for

styles have depended on the number of lines, line placement, and consumer's

design experience or training (Sailor, 1971).

Design Detail

The third design element that influenced consumers' aesthetic

evaluation of clothing was design detail. Examples of design detail included

embellishments such as buttons and belts, fabric characteristics like texture

and luster, and construction features such as darts (Eckman, 1992). Little

research has been done on the influence of design detail on consumer

33
purchase behavior toward dress, perhaps because of the variety of design

details or the possible Insignificance of them in aesthetic evaluation. Although

fashion trends occurred in design details, many consumers did not pay as

much attention to them as color and line. However, design details that

stimulated consumers' interest and enjoyment facilitated the acceptance of a

new style (Sproles, 1981b).

Texture

According to Eckman, Damhorst, and Kadolph (1990), texture referred

to the actual or implied characteristics of surface and was described as

smooth, rough, shiny, or dull. Texture, along with other design elements,

made a significant contribution to the aesthetic satisfaction of apparel. Fabric

and garment construction details were the main sources of texture in apparel

and textile products. Fabric surface was usually determined by fiber content,

yarn, fabric structure, fabric finish, and construction details like seams,

gathers, or pleating (Fiore & KimIe, 1997).

Clothing textures interacted visually with each other, with personal

textures, and with body contour and structure. Psychological effects of

textural touch, sight, and sound greatly affected the mood of a garment

(Davis, 1996). Soft textures were generally viewed as formal or relaxing,

while firmer textures were viewed as businesslike or sporty.

34
Pattern

Davis (1996) stated that pattern refers to the arrangement of line,

space, or shape on the surface of a fabric. Pattern consisted of basic design

elements that could be broken down into Individual elements, therefore,

technically, it was not a basic element. However, Davis suggested that

pattern could be used as a medium to manipulate physical and psychological

effects with its own visual effects. Depending on the way each component of

pattern was used, pattern strengthened, weakened, or made the overall effect

of apparel more subtle or versatile. Pattern combined physical and

psychological effects to create its own Impressions which reinforced, modified,

or countered the effects of individual elements (Davis, 1996). In that sense,

pattern was considered a single design element.

Individual Differences and Aesthetic Preferences

The dynamics of aesthetic evaluation has been complex. Aesthetic

evaluation has been affected by product qualities and characteristics of

individuals who perceive them (Bell, Holbrook, & Solomon, 1991). Product

qualities included product specific attributes, such as color, line, shape, and

texture. Individual characteristics have been examined from various

perspectives, including personal characteristics, psycho-social characteristics,

physical characteristics, or situational characteristics.

35
 Individual differences, such as age, body image, gender, education,

and personality, have affected aesthetic preferences (Fiore & KimIe, 1997).

These characteristics, considered demographic and psychographic variables,

have been used In marketing profiles of consumers for the development and

promotion of products. In addition, an individual's socio-cultural and personal

experiences affected evaluation of or preference for products aesthetic

qualities (DeLong, 1987; Holbrook, 1986). Socio-cultural attributes that

affected individual aesthetic preferences include geographic location,

ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation (Fiore & KimIe, 1997)

Age

Several researchers have found that age has an effect on preferences

for aesthetic products, such as music, fragrance, and apparel (Furukawa,

1995; Holbrook & Schlndler, 1989; Schindler & Holbrook, 1993). According to

Holbrook and Schindler, development of personal preference and enduring

tastes were formed during a critical period in a consumer's life. In particular,

taste for certain aesthetic forms was developed eariy in life and influenced

preferences for a lifetime. Schindler and Holbrook (1993) found enduring

preferences for personal appearance were formed around the age of 41.

Horridge, Khan, and Huffman (1981), in a study of clothing

preferences, found that females less than 35 years old were more aware of

36
fashion than older women. In addition, the largest portion of fashion opinion

leaders among female homemakers was less than 30 years old. Fashion

opinion leadership decreased as females got older.

Socio-Economic Factors

The effect of socio-economic variables, such as income, education,

and occupation, on aesthetic preference was not conclusive. Contradicting

results reported by Morganosky (1984/1987) proved uncertain association

between socio-economic factors and aesthetics. Morganosky (1987) reported

a positive relationship between income and aesthetics and a negative

relationship between income and functionality. This finding was contradictory

to her 1984 findings. Moreover, Morganosky (1987) could not find enough

evidence to show the effect of demographic differences among participants on

fashionability or aesthetic aspects of clothing.

Geographic Location

Physical environment, like climate condition or historical events of a

particular area has affected aesthetic preferences of an individual (Fiore &

KimIe, 1997). Differences in aesthetic preferences among consumers in

California, New York, New Mexico, and Texas could be considered.

Consumers in New York preferred the conservative, professional, and neutral

37
colored styles, while consumers In California or Texas have preferred the

contemporary, sporty, and bright colored styles (Flore & KimIe, 1997).

Ethnicity

Due to the fact that ethnic diversity in the United States has continued

to increase, a considerable number of products have been designed and

promoted with the preferences of specific ethnic markets in mind. It has been

a necessary marketing tool in recent global marketing paradigms. Several

researchers have established that there are differences in consumers'

decision-making criteria among different cultures. For instance, Asian and

Hispanic cultures have been strongly group-oriented, compared to

individualistic North American counterparts. Asian and Hispanic Americans

shopped more as a group, with family in particular, and individual

consumption decisions were affected by family elders (Doran, 1994; Yau,

1988).

Several researchers have reported Anglo American consumers are

price conscious, while Asian American consumers are somewhat

quality-oriented. Braun (1991) and Miller (1993) reported that quality was the

most important product attribute for Asian Americans in making purchase

decisions overall. However, Fisher (1993) reported contradicting results.

When purchasing food, beverages, and household products, price was the

38
most important product attribute for Asian Americans. These conflicting

findings Indicate the possible existence of confounding variables, such as

diverse ethnic backgrounds within Asian Americans, as well as different levels

of acculturation.

Kang and Kim (1998) examined the decision-making patterns of Asian

American sub-groups, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans in relation to

acculturation levels. The findings indicated different decision-making patterns

among the three sub-groups: Korean and Chinese consumers considered

product-related appeal more important than Japanese consumers. In

addition, perceived Importance of store attributes in making purchase

decisions was affected by acculturation level for all three sub-groups.

Due to the fact that a consumer's ethnic background affected

purchase-decision patterns, a consumer's aesthetic evaluation process may

have also been affected by ethnicity. Fiore and KimIe (1997) suggested that

differences in ethnic background affected aesthetic preferences of consumers.

Body image

Several researchers defined body image as the mental picture or

perception we have of our bodies at any given moment in time (Fiore & KimIe,

1997; Kaiser, 1997). Domzal and Kernan (1993) reported that body image

affected people's feelings about themselves and influenced general desire for

39
aesthetic products. How people viewed their bodies affected their pursuit of

beauty and, consequently, their desire for products and services that enhance

the body.

Thompson (1986) believed that the concept of body image differed

between the self and others' perceptions of that body. He indicated that some

people may think they are obese when others perceive their bodies as

average or standard figures. People with a variety of shapes and sizes have

had distorted images of their bodies. Most commonly, there has been a

tendency to overestimate the size of one's body. Those with anorexia or

bulimia were examples. Thompson reported that women overestimated their

body size more on average than men.

According to Kaiser (1997), the body has been regarded as a link

between the inner person and some of society's most important values.

Cultural ideology, social relations, and personal activities have determined the

way people feel about their bodies. The desirability of certain body forms and

how the body should be displayed have been Influenced by cultural and social

norms. For example, people have based their perception of idealistic body

forms on the figures represented in fashion magazines, beauty contests, and

television commercials. In this context, people have used their bodies as a

medium for self-assessment along with clothing.

40
 Depending on the self-image, clothing has been perceived differently

by Individuals. Different clothing styles have been chosen with the intention of

hiding certain parts of the body one perceives as flawed. Even shopping has

had different meaning to people with little or no satisfaction with their

body-Image. Millman (1980) reported that many obese women disliked

shopping, because It is a context that forces them to confront the reality that

they are ovenA/eight.

Body Silhouette

There has been an agreement that body figures are different from one

individual to another, and almost nobody has an exactly average, perfect, or

ideal body. Consumer figure variation has affected aesthetic preferences, due

to the interaction between the aesthetic qualities of apparel and the aesthetic

qualities of the body (Fiore & KimIe, 1997). The interaction between apparel

and body has tended to determine consumer purchase decisions (Eckman,

Damhorst, & Kadolph, 1989).

According to Fiore and KimIe (1997), the human body form consisted of

colors, textures, and proportions that interacted with perceivable tactile

qualities of apparel. The interaction between the body form and apparel had a

great impact on the body's attractiveness and affected consumer aesthetic

preferences.

41
 Sproles (1979) suggested that the function of fashion related products

has been to enhance the body form by manipulating aesthetic qualities.

Consumers have considered their skin tone, eye color, and hair color in the

selection of apparel and fashion accessories. Consumer height, weight, and

body proportion has also been considered during the apparel purchase

decision-making process and has affected aesthetic preferences. Consumer

visual evaluation of their own bodies in relation to apparel, has been

influenced by the public climate of what is perceived to be ideal or acceptable.

Rasband (1994) stated that the term, ideal body, has been used as a frame of

reference for comparison. However, in many cases, the term has been

wrongfully used as a barometer to group normal versus abnormal figures.

Rasband (1994) reported that figures were different from one individual

to another, and few people had an average, perfect, or ideal body. The term

"figure variation," as Rasband described, referred to the individual figure

deviations from the average body. The individual figure difference, that was

characterized by height, bone size or structure, weight, proportional body

areas, contour and figure type, and posture, affected aesthetic preferences for

apparel.

42
 Summan/

The number of women in the workforce has increased steadily In the

last thirty years. This has been due to: (a) the attainment of higher

educational levels by women, (b) a greater demand for women in traditionally

female occupations, and (c) an increase of women In non-traditional male

dominated occupations. Traditionally, women have quit work upon marriage

or child bearing. Currently, women continue to work after marriage and

children. The result of greater numbers of working women has been arisein

the discretionary income among families. This additional income has often

been spent on the purchase of apparel for work.

As women have become entrenched in careers, they have spent the

largest proportion of their apparel dollars on career clothing. Many studies

have examined the apparel purchases of working women, focusing on either

the aesthetic attributes of apparel or the consumer characteristics of working

women. However, few researchers have examined the interrelationship

between the aesthetic quality of apparel and consumer characteristics.

Therefore, this study seeks to: (a) investigate areas such as consumer

job-speclfic-situational characteristics, and physical profile in relation to

aesthetic preference of apparel, business jackets in particular, (b) assess

consumer psycho-social motivation in relation to aesthetic preference of

jackets, and (c) provide additional data for the development of the consumer

43
aesthetic evaluation model and to provide Industry and academia with new

information in the area of aesthetics and consumer behavior.

44
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This research investigated the differences in the jacket design

preferences of working women. The study also assessed the factors that

affected different jacket design preferences. Described in this chapter are the

proposed research model, research design, sample selection, measurement

instrument, data collection procedure, variables for the study, and statistical

analysis.

Proposed Research Model

The research model used in this study was based on a general model

of the consumer's fashion adoption process (Sproles, 1979) (refer to Figure

1). With other early theoretical works on fashion, the Sproles model

contributed to the development of fashion theory. Sproles (1981) suggested

that Individual attributes influence decision making for fashion goods. In his

framework, silhouette was the critical aesthetic attribute for fashion design.

Holbrook (1986) suggested that aesthetic attributes are the key factors

in consumption behavior. Several other empirical studies also documented

the importance of aesthetics in clothing design evaluation (Eckman, 1992/

1997; Eckman, Damhorst, & Kadolph, 1989; Morganosky & Postlewait, 1989).

45
Eckman et al. showed that aesthetic attributes (e.g., color, pattern, and

styling) surpassed utilitarian attributes (e.g., versatility and appropriateness) in

point-of-purchase decisions by consumers.

The consumer's fashion adoption process model (refer to Figure 1)

mapped the individual's role in that process and is the conceptual foundation

of this research. The model for this study consisted of four components that

contain variables related to consumer aesthetic preference: (a) personal

characteristics, (b) psycho-social identity, (c) job-specific situational

characteristics, and (d) physical profile (refer to Figure 2). The model

proposed linkages between aesthetic preference and the selected variables.

The solid line indicated sequential direct relationships, while the dotted lines

represented indirect relationships among sequential variables. The model

viewed consumer aesthetic preference as an outcome of personal

characteristics, psycho-social identity, job-specific situational characteristics,

and physical profile.

Research Design

The methodological approach utilized in this study was a

cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire. A

cross-sectional study has been the best known and most important descriptive

design, and has been best distinguished by its use of sample elements from

46
 Major compontnt of
the fashion proceu
o Pre.«xiiting
conditions
Directing influences on
the fashion process
<o> Central channel of
consumer decision making
Influences from adopter's
ENVIRONMENT
LIFESTYLES
SOCIOCULTURAL
CHANGE
THE FASHION
MARKETING SYSTEM
—Select stores to shop
—Currently available styles
-Purposeful information
seeking
—Evaluation at the store
—Narrowing the choice
Critical characteristic(s)
considered: style, fit,
price, brand, physical
characteristics, climate
of use, maintenance
Innovator
Opinion Leader
Identify
clothing arxJ
fashion needs
' Specific roles and activities
DIMENSIONS OF CHANGE:
New fashion object
emerges, changing
lifestyles, changing level
of acceptance, social
termination of trend,
physical obsolescence
Figure 1. Sproles' General Model of the Consumer's Fashion A(Joption Process.
Source: Excerpted from George G. Sproles, "Fashion: Consumer Behavior Toward Dress,"
1979, p. 197
Current level of acceptance of style by
fashion leaders and other coruumers
New style Estatslished fashion,
Low acceptance to HigS acceptance
Adopter's identity: age. sex, socioeconomic
characteristics, physical profile (body size/
shape, appearance, etc.)
Start of consumer's Adopter's psychosocial
information seeking and MOTIVATIONS
decision making
ADOPTER'S C O G N I T I V E ORIENTATIONS
TOWARD DRESS: awareness, interest,
knowledge, innov ativeness, perceived risk,
expectations^attitudes, values
ADOPTER'S PSVCHOLOGICAL IDENTITY:
self<oncept, personality, individuality-
conformity
SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON ADOPTER:
collective behavior, socialization,
refererice groups, social communications
and opinion leadership
.^IDENTIFICATION^
OF ALTERNATIVES'
Reject (Begin again or
save information for
later decision)
Acquisition
(purchase, sew, gift)
•
TIME OF ADOPTION
ADOPTER'S IDENTITY A S .
Early Conformist Late Follower
f
Mass Market Consumer Laggard, Isolate
Repeat acquisitions
of same/similar style
Influence on other
POTENTIAL ADOPTERS
NEW FASHION PROCESS BEGINS .
(Return to start)
47
 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Age
Mahtal Status
Educational Attainment
Number of Children
Age of Children
Ethnicity
Contribution to Household Income
Household Size
Professional Wardrobe Expenditure
Employment Status
Employment Orientation
Occupation
Geographic Region
PSYCHO-SOCIAL IDENTITY

Seif-Confidence in Dressing
Self-Monitoring
Perceived Importance of Clothing
Presence of Career Objectivity
Job Satisfaction

.
JACKET DESIGN ELEMENTS
i
•
Jacket Length
;
Jacket Pattern
Jacket Silhouette DESIGN PREFERENCES
I
Jacket Neckline Drop
1 Jacket Collar Style

i
i k iL

JOB-SPECIFIC SITUATIONAL
i CHARACTERISTICS
Implicit Dress Code
Visibility to Superiors and Public
Length of Time in Career
Corporate Culture

PHYSICAL PROFILE

Body Weight
Body Height
Body Silhouette
Hair Color
Eye Color
Dress Size
Body Frame Size

Figure 2. Proposed Research Model: Consumer Aesthetic Preference in Relation to

Personal Characteristics, Psycho-Social Identity, Job-Specific Situational
Characteristics, and Physical Profile. Model developed by the researcher.
48
the population of interest, where the elements are measured at a single point

in time (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996). Fraenkel and Wallen (1996) indicated that

survey results can be interpreted as an accurate representation of the opinion

of the entire population if scientific sampling techniques are used.

External validity refers to "the extent that the results of a study can be

generalized from a sample to a population" (Fraenkel et al., 1996, p.111).

Most researchers intend to generalize their findings to appropriate

populations. However, researchers can never be sure that their sample is

representative of the population. There are always some differences between

the sample and the population. The threats to external validity

(e.g., sampling error) were controlled by randomly selecting a large sample for

the study. Therefore, the selected sample can be considered representative

of the population, and the results of the study can be generalized.

Internal validity refers to the extent that observed differences in the

dependent variable are directly related to the independent variable, and not

due to another unintended variable. When a study has internal validity, the

interpretation of the outcome is legitimate. In this study, threats to internal

validity were minimized by using a consistent instrumentation process and

assessing detailed information on subject characteristics.

Measurement error refers to inconsistencies in measurements.

Measurement error occurs when invalid and unreliable instruments are used

49
to measure variables in a study. A slight variation in measured scores due to

a variety of factors such as differences in motivation, energy, anxiety, and

different testing situations is inevitable. Such factors result in measurement

errors. For this study, measurement error was controlled by employing

instruments that have been validated by other researchers and that are

believed to be reliable. In addition, Cronbach's alpha coefficients were

calculated for variables with multiple items to address internal consistencies

among those items. The visual stimuli were developed by the researcher.

Therefore, the instruments containing visual stimuli were validated by 11

current design experts across the nation to control possible measurement

errors.

Selection of Sample

A target population, also called an actual population, refers to the group

to which the study results are intended to apply, while a sample refers to the

group on which information is obtained (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996). The target

population for this study was working women in the United States who wear

business jackets to work at least once a week.

The accessible population was defined as working women who wear

business jackets to work at least once a week and whose names were in the

data base of National Demographics & Lifestyles (NDL). A national

50
cross-section of 1,500 working women was randomly drawn for the study by

NDL. All subjects had an equal and independent chance of being selected for

the sample.

The target sample size was a minimum of 200. The sample size was

determined after utilizing power analysis at the moderate power level. Based

on the number of variables used in the hypotheses testing and the number of

categories included for nominal variables, 200 was the minimum sample size

recommended.

Research Instruments

The research instruments for this study consisted of two parts: visual

stimuli and a self-administered questionnaire. Visual stimuli that contained 18

black and white CAD drawings of business jackets were developed to

measure design preference, the dependent variable. Although color was

believed to have a great impact on consumer aesthetic evaluation of apparel,

only black and white CAD drawings were utilized due to variability in color.

Visual stimuli were placed at the beginning of the survey, so subjects'

responses to each jacket design would be independent of the questions

asked in the questionnaire. The subjects evaluated 18 jacket designs based

on a 5-point Likert-type scale, 1 indicating not attractive and 5 indicating very

attractive. The questionnaire was developed to measure consumers' personal

51
characteristics, psycho-social identities, job-specific situational characteristics,

and physical profiles.

Visual Stimuli

Eighteen black-and-white CAD drawings of business jackets were

created as stimuli. The term business jacket referred to a suit jacket that is

commonly accepted for business or formal social occasions. The business

jacket was chosen as a sole representation of business attire because the

jacket has been considered the hallmark of American business women

(Molloy, 1996). Today, the jacket serves the same functions for women that

the suit does for men. The jacket identifies its wearer as a serious career

woman with power, authority, and potential. According to a survey conducted

by Molloy, ninety-three percent of business men and ninety-four percent of

business women, no matter what they themselves were wearing, assumed

that women wearing jackets outranked women without jackets.

Five jacket design elements were used in this study and included jacket

length (short, hip, and tunic level), jacket pattern (plaid, stripe, and solid),

jacket silhouette (fitted, semi-fitted, and loosely fitted), jacket neckline drop

(low/waist deep, medium/below bust, and high/above bust), and jacket collar

style (no collar, notched collar, and shawl collar). These selected design

elements were found to influence consumers' aesthetic evaluation of fashion

52
objects, silhouette, line, and design detail (Davis, 1996; Richardson, 1980;

Sproles, 1981). Color was believed to be one of the key factors in consumer

aesthetic evaluation, however, it was dropped in this study due to the high

variability and cost of reproduction. The visual stimuli were placed at the

beginning of the questionnaire in a booklet format.

By using five jacket design elements at three levels each, a total of 243

jacket design combinations could be generated from a full factorial plan

(refer to Table 3). Of the 243 possible combinations, only a fraction

(18 jacket designs) were selected for this study. The eighteen jacket design

combinations, presented in Table 4, were formulated using the 3^ fractional

factorial experimental design catalog developed by Hahn and Shapiro (1966).

To estimate main effects, some of the interactions were assumed to be

negligible. From the design catalog (Hahn & Shapiro, 1966), the first 5

columns in plan number 6 was used.

All the designs in the catalog were orthogonal which means of the 243

possible design combinations, only the ones that were totally different from

each other were chosen. Each level in each factor had equal chance to be

selected. Therefore, the 18 design combinations selected for the study were

balanced and representative of the 243 possible combinations. This was

further tested utilizing correlation analysis. The results are reported in

Table 5.

53
Table 3. Illustration of Possible Jacket Design Combinations Using 5
Attributes with 3 Levels

Design Elements Levels Number of

Possible
Combinations

Jacket Length Short, hip level, tunic 3

Jacket Pattern Plaid, pin-striped, solid 9

Jacket Silhouette Fitted, semi-fitted, loosely-fitted 27

Jacket Neckline Drop Low / waist deep.

Medium / below bust.
High / above bust 81

Jacket Collar Style No lapel, notched, shawl 243

54
Table 4. Eighteen Jacket Design Combinations Formulated Using Orthogonal
Fractional Factorial Design Catalog Developed by Hahn and Shapiro (1966)

Combination Description of Jacket Design

Number

00000 Short, plaid, fitted, waist deep, no lapel

01121 Short, pin-striped, semi-fitted, above bust, notched collar
02212 Short, solid, loosely-fitted, below bust, shawl collar
10111 Hip level, plaid, semi-fitted, below bust, notched collar
11202 Hip level, pin-striped, loosely-fitted, waist deep, shawl collar
12020 Hip level, solid, fitted, above bust, no lapel
20221 Tunic level, plaid, loosely-fitted, above bust, notched collar
21012 Tunic level, pin-striped, fitted, below bust, shawl collar
22100 Tunic level, solid, semi-fitted, waist deep, no lapel
00210 Short, plaid, loosely-fitted, below bust, no lapel
01001 Short, pin-striped, fitted, waist deep, notched collar
02122 Short, solid, semi-fitted, above bust, shawl collar
10022 Hip level, plaid, fitted, above bust, shawl collar
11110 Hip level, pin-Striped, semi-fitted, below bust, no lapel
12201 Hip level, solid, loosely-fitted, waist deep, notched
20102 Tunic level, plaid, semi-fitted, waist deep, shawl collar

21220 Tunic level, pin-striped, loosely-fitted, above bust, no lapel

22011 Tunic level, solid, fitted, below bust, notched collar

Note: The five digit combination number indicates levels in each variable:firstdigit
indicates jacket length (0 being short, 1 being hip level, 2 being tunic level); second
digit indicates jacket pattern (0 being plaid, 1 being pin-striped, 2 being solid); third
digit indicates jacket silhouette (0 being fitted, 1 being semi-fitted, 2 being loosely
fitted); fourth digit indicates jacket neckline drop (0 being low/waist deep, 1 being
medium/below bust, 2 being high/above bust); and the last digit indicates jacket collar
style (0 being no lapel, 1 being notched collar, 2 being shawl collar). Each level in
each attribute has an equal chance to be chosen.

55
Table 5. Correlation Among Five Design Attributes Using 18 Jacket Design
Combinations by 3® Orthogonal Fractional Factorial Experimental Design

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

F1 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

F2 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

F3 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.0 1.0000 1.0000

F4 1.00000 0.00000
0.0 1.0000

F5 1.00000
0.0

Note: F1 through F5 indicates jacket length, jacket pattern, jacket silhouette, jacket
neckline drop, jacket collar style, respectively. Eighteen design combinations (refer
to Table 4) were generated using 3^ orthogonal fractional factorial design catalog
developed by Hahn and Shapiro (1966).

56
 In creating black-and-white drawings of the 18 jacket designs, two

computer graphic programs were used, Smartsketch 95 and Coreldraw. After

18 jacket designs were completed, the designs were evaluated by apparel

design experts across the nation. The eighteen business jacket designs, one

jacket printed on each page, were mailed tofifteendesigners. The designers

were asked to identify the design elements used in terms of five factors and

three levels. Of the fifteen designers, eleven returned the survey. Most

designers identified the design elements correctly. When more than one

designer incorrectly identified design elements in a particular jacket, the jacket

design was modified to best describe the intended design by the researcher.

This validation process was employed to control possible measurement errors

in visual stimuli.

For the main study, each subject received a booklet that contained 18

drawings of business jackets. The subjects rated their degree of preference

for each jacket design on a 5-point Likert-type scale, 1 indicating not attractive

and 5 indicating very attractive. The assigned scores were used as

responses for each dependent variable.

The Questionnaire

A self-administered questionnaire was developed to elicit information

regarding working women's (a) personal characteristics, (b) psycho-social

57
identity, (c) job-specific situational characteristics, and (d) physical profile.

The questionnaire was formatted into a booklet containing a front cover

followed by eight sections. Since a mail survey to individuals was chosen as

the data collection mode, the visual stimuli were placed in the questionnaire

sections I and II, and the actual questionnaire begun in section III. A copy of

the questionnaire may be found in Appendix A.

The third section of the questionnaire consisted of 20 questions related

to (a) self-confidence in dressing (3 items - Q01, Q06, Q10), (b) ability to

modify self-presentation (7 items - Q04, Q09, Q11, Q12, Q14, Q16, Q20),

(c) sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others (4 items - Q02, Q03, Q07,

Q13), and (d) perceived importance of clothing (6 items - Q05, Q08, Q15,

Q17, Q18, Q19). The items related to self-confidence in dressing and

perceived importance of clothing were adapted from Rabolt (1984), and the

items related to ability to modify self-presentation and sensitivity to the

expressive behavior of others were adapted from Snyder (1974) and Lennox

and Wolfe (1984).

The fourth section elicited information regarding the respondent's

business jacket purchase and consumption behavior. Business jacket design

elements important in business jacket purchase decision (Q01), factors

important in business jacket purchase (Q02), frequency of wearing business

jackets per week (Q03), seasons in which business jackets are most often

58
worn (Q04), number of business jackets in inventory (Q05), colors of business

jackets in inventory (Q06), apparel items most frequently worn with business

jackets (Q07), business jackets purchased as a suit or separate (Q08),

preferred retail store type for purchasing professional apparel (Q09), payment

type used for purchasing professional apparel (Q10), and professional apparel

expenditures (Q11) were included in this section.

The fifth section elicited information regarding visibility to superiors and

the public (2 items - Q01, Q04), implicit dress codes (Q09), and job

satisfaction (8 items - Q02, Q03, Q05, Q06, Q07, Q08, Q10, Q11). Questions

number 03 and 05 in this section were reverse coded. The items for visibility

to superiors and the public and implicit dress codes were adapted from Rabolt

(1984). The items for job satisfaction were adapted from Bagozzi (1980),

Dubinsky and Hartley (1986), and Lucas, Babakus, and Ingram (1990).

The sixth section was designed to elicit information concerning the

respondents physical profile. Height (Q01), weight (Q02), body frame size

(Q03), dress size (Q04), hair color (Q05), eye color (Q06), and torso silhouette

(Q07) were included in this section. Questions 01 through 06 were developed

by the researcher, and question 07 was adapted from Rasband (1994).

The seventh section contained questions related to work and work

environment. Size of the firm (Q01), degree of conservativeness at work

(Q02), male and female ratio (Q03), years at firm (Q04), years in career

59
(Q05), occupation (Q06), job title (Q07), employment status (Q08), career

orientation (Q09), presence of career objectivity (Q10), number of

customers/clients encountered daily at work (Q11), and number of

superiors/colleagues encountered daily at work (Q12) were included in this

section.

The eighth section was designed to elicit information concerning

Individual characteristics. Age (Q01), marital status (Q02), educational

attainment (Q03), ethnic background (Q04), residence area (Q05), household

size (Q06), number and age of children (Q07), andfinancialcontribution to

household income (Q08) were included in this section.

Pilot Test

A pilot study was conducted in June of 1999 in Lubbock, Texas to test

for (a) the content of the instruments regarding clarity in wording,

(b) comprehension of the instructions and terminology, and (c) fatigue. Two

sets of questionnaires were prepared for this part of the study. A convenience

sample of 43 subjects was recruited. A drop-off/pick-up method of distribution

was used to deliver the questionnaires. A total of 43 questionnaires, 24 type

A and 19 type B were returned.

Based on the analysis of the pilot study, the visual stimuli section was

reformatted for sizing of each jacket design and placement in the

60
questionnaire. The eighteen jacket designs were scaled down, and all of the

designs were placed on two pages facing each other, so the respondents

could review all the available options. In addition, question 07 in section VI

was revised. Instead of using statements to describe each torso silhouette,

black and white figure drawings were utilized.

Collection of Data

Dillman's mail survey technique (Salant & Dillman, 1994) was utilized

for collection of the research data. A self-administered questionnaire was

mailed to randomly selected representatives of working women in the United

States. The subjects were drawn from a data base consisting of a

cross-section of consumers, ages 25 and over. During the summer of 1999, a

total of 1500 questionnaires were mailed to randomly selected working female

consumers. Participation was voluntary and respondents were informed of

confidentiality of the investigation. In order to prompt the response and

increase the response rate, respondents were informed of a drawing for one

$100 money order for participants who returned completed questionnaires.

(See Appendix D for a copy of the entry form.)

A complete implementation theme was planned. All correspondence

was personalized and all questionnaires were numbered so that

non-respondents could be identified. A preliminary postcard was mailed to

61
inform the respondents of the upcoming questionnaire and research purpose,

and to ask for participation. The actual survey was mailed exactly one week

after the preliminary postcard was mailed. The survey booklet included visual

stimuli, the questionnaire, the money order entry form, and a business reply

envelope. Two weeks later, a yellow postcard follow-up was mailed to all

non-respondents. (See Appendix E for a copy of follow-up postcard.) Six

weeks after initiating data collection, 312 questionnaires were processed, and

the data were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis.

Variables for the Studv

The variables for the study were:

1. Jacket design preference was measured by responses to 18 business

jacket designs in section I of the questionnaire. Jacket design preference

data was analyzed to determine attractiveness of each jacket design. The

data was measured on afive-pointLikert-type scale with 5 indicating very

attractive and 1 Indicating not attractive. This variable was treated as a

continuous variable.

62
2. Perceived importance of clothing was measured by responses to items

(Q05, Q08, Q15, Q17, Q18, Q19) in section III of the questionnaire.

Individuals who perceive clothing to be Important in their work situation are

expected to be different in their selection of preferred designs. The items

were adapted from Rabolt (1984) and Rabolt and Drake (1985). Subjects

indicated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point Likert-type

scale, 7 representing strong agreement and 1 representing strong

disagreement. The sum of all items was calculated for statistical testing and

treated as a continuous variable.

3. Self-confidence in dress was measured by responses to three items

(Q01, Q06, Q10) in section III of the questionnaire. Consumers low in

self-confidence are thought to be different in their selection of preferred

designs. A specific self-confidence scale was used to measure one's

confidence in performing a specific task such as purchasing an automobile or

clothing. The items were adapted from Rabolt (1984) and Rabolt and Drake

(1985). Subjects Indicated their agreement with each statement on a

seven-point Likert-type scale, 7 representing strong agreement and 1

representing strong disagreement. The sum of all items was calculated for

statistical testing and treated as a continuous variable.

4. Self-monitoring was measured from two perspectives using the concept

defined by Lennox and Wolfe (1984). Snyder (1974) first defined

63
self-monitoring of expressive behavior and self-presentation as individuals'

self-observation and self-control guided by situational cues to social

appropriateness. Snyder (1974) originally developed a self-monitoring scale

to discriminate individual differences within three domains: (a) social

appropriateness, (b) sensitivity to the expression and self-presentation of

others in social situations as cues to social appropriateness of

self-expression, and (c) use of these cues as guidelines for monitoring and

managing self-presentation and expressive behavior.

Lennox and Wolfe (1984) later revised the self-monitoring scale

restricting the concept of self-monitoring to the ability to modify

self-presentation and sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others. They

believed this narrow definition of the construct to be more reflective of the high

self-monitor.

Following the definition by Lennox and Wolfe, the self-monitoring scale

employed in this study consisted of two parts, self-monitoring in terms of

sensitivity to expressive behavior of others and self-monitoring in terms of

ability to modify self-presentation. Seven items (Q04, Q09, Q11, Q12, Q14,

Q16, Q20) in section III measured ability to modify self-presentation, while

four items (Q02, Q03, Q07, Q13) measured sensitivity to the expressive

behavior of others.

64
 Subjects responded to the statements on a seven-point Likert-type

scale with 7 representing the highest level of self-monitoring and 1

representing the lowest level of self-monitoring. Sum of responses to all items

was calculated and used in statistical testing. The variable was treated as a

continuous variable.

5. Job satisfaction was measured by responses to eight items (Q02-Q03,

Q05-Q8, Q10-Q11) in section V of the questionnaire. The items were adapted

from Bagozzi (1980), Dubinsky and Hartley (1986), and Lucas, Babakus, and

Ingram (1990). Subjects indicated their agreement with each statement on a

seven-point Likert-type scale, 7 representing strong agreement and 1

representing strong disagreement. Sum of responses to all items was

calculated and used in statistical testing. The variable was treated as a

continuous variable.

6. Job-specific situational characteristics elicited the respondents

information regarding corporate culture. The variables, presence of implicit

dress codes (Q09) and visibility to superiors and public (Q01, Q04), were

placed in section V of the questionnaire. Subjects indicated their agreement

with each statement on a seven-point Likert-type scale, 7 representing strong

agreement and 1 representing strong disagreement. Sum of responses to all

items was calculated and used in statistical testing. The variable was treated

as a continuous variable.

65
 Size of the firm (Q01), degree of conservativeness at work

(Q02), male and female ratio (Q03), years at firm (Q04), years In career

(Q05), occupation (Q06), job title (Q07), employment status (Q08), career

orientation (Q09), number of customers/clients daily encountered at work

(Q11), and number of superiors/colleagues daily encountered at work (Q12)

were included in section VII.

A. Size offirm- The size offirmvariable consisted of (1) small,

(2) medium, (3) large, and (4) other. This variable was treated as a nominal

variable.

B. Conservativeness - The conservativeness variable was measured

on a seven-point Likert-type scale, 7 representing extremely conservative

work environment and 1 representing not at all conservative work

environment. The variable was treated as a continuous variable.

C. Male and female ratio - The male and female ratio variable was

measured as an open-ended question. Subjectsfilledout blanks indicating

the percentage ratio of males to females at work. Since each ratio totaled

100%, only one of the variables was used for canonical correlation analysis to

eliminate multicollinearity. This variable was treated as a continuous variable.

D. Years at firm and years in career - The years at job and years in

career variables were measured on an open-ended question format. These

variables were also treated as continuous variables.

66
 E. Number of customers/clients encountered daily at work and number

of superiors/colleagues encountered daily at work - These variables were

measured on an open-ended question format. The variables were treated as

continuous variables.

F. Occupation and job title - The occupation and job title variables

were also measured on an open-ended question format. The occupation

variable was later classified into two categories; professionals and

non-professionals. Professionals were classified as professional or technical,

manager or administrator, and sales worker. Non-professionals were

classified as clerical worker, craft worker or machine operator, service worker,

and government or military worker. Responses to job title further helped to

clarify any ambiguity in occupation. The job title variable was subsided into

occupation and was not used in data analysis. The occupation variable was

treated as a nominal variable.

G. Employment status - The employment status variable consisted of

(1) full-time, (2) part-time, and (3) other. This variable was treated as a

nominal variable.

H. Career orientation - The career orientation variable consisted of

(1) just-a-job, and (2) career. This variable was treated as a nominal variable.

1. Presence of career objectivity - This variable was measured by

response to item 10 in section VII of the questionnaire. The presence of

67
career objectivity variable consisted of (1) yes and (2) no. This variable was

treated as nominal variable

7. Physical characteristics were measured responses to items (Q01-Q07) in

section VI of the questionnaire. The variables included were height, weight,

body frame size, garment size category, average dress size, eye color, hair

color, and torso silhouette. Height (Q01) and weight (Q02) were measured on

an open-ended question format. Height was measured in inches, while weight

was measured in pounds. These variables were treated as continuous

variables.

A. Body frame - The body frame variable consisted of (1) petite,

(2) small, (3) medium, (4) large, and (5) extra-large. This variable was treated

as a nominal variable.

B. Garment size category - The garment size category variable

consisted of (1) petite, (2) tall, (3) misses, and (4) women's. This variable was

also treated as a nominal variable.

C. Dress size - The dress size variable was measured on an

open-ended question format, and treated as a continuous variable.

D. Hair color - The hair color variable consisted of (1) blonde,

(2) brown, (3) black, (4) red, and (5) other. This variable was treated as a

nominal variable.

E. Eye color - The eye color variable consisted of (1) brown, (2) blue.

68
(3) green, (4) black, and (5) other. This variable was also treated as a

nominal variable.

F. Torso silhouette - The torso silhouette variable consisted of eight

black and white figure drawings: (1) idealfiguretype, (2) triangularfiguretype,

(3) inverted triangularfiguretype, (4) rectangularfiguretype, (5) hourglass

figure type, (6) diamond shaped figure type, (7) tubular figure type, and

(8) rounded figure type. This variable was also treated as a nominal variable.

8. Personal characteristics were measured responses to items (Q01-Q08) in

section VIII of the questionnaire. The variables included were age (Q01),

marital status (Q02), educational attainment (Q03), ethnic background (Q04),

geographic location (Q05), household size (Q06), number of children (Q07),

and percentage offinancialcontribution to total annual household income

(Q08). These variables were treated as continuous variables.

A. Age - The age variable was measured on an open-ended question

format. The variable was treated as a continuous variable.

B. Marital status - The marital status variable consisted of (1) single,

never married, (2) divorced, (3) married, (4) widowed, (5) separated, and

(6) cohabiting. The variable was treated as a nominal variable.

C. Educational attainment - The educational attainment variable

consisted of (1) less than high school, (2) some high school, (3) high school

diploma, or equivalent, (4) some college work, (5) associate degree.

69
(6) bachelor's degree, (7) post-graduate professional training, (8) some

graduate work, (9) master's degree, (10) doctoral degree, (11) post doctoral

work, and (12) other. The variable was treated as a nominal variable.

D. Ethnic Background - The ethnic background variable consisted of

(1) Caucasian, (2) African-American, (3) Hispanic, and (4) Asian. The variable

was treated as a nominal variable.

E. Geographic Location - The geographic location variable was

measured on an open-ended question format. The variable was later

classified into four categories: (1) west states, (2) north-east states,

(3) north-central states, and (4) south states. The variable was treated as a

nominal variable.

F. Number of Children - The number of children variable was

measured on an open-ended question format. The variable was treated as a

continuous variable.

G. Financial Contribution to Household Income - The financial

contribution variable consisted of (1) 10% or below, (2) 11%-20%,

(3) 21%-30%, (4) 31%-40%, (5) 41%-50%, (6) 51%-60%, (7) 61%-70%,

(8) 71%-80%, (9) 81%-90%, and (10) 91%-100%. The variable was treated

as a nominal variable.

70
 statistical Analysis of Data

Descriptive statistics, such as frequency, percentage distribution, mean

scores, and standard deviation were utilized to assess personal,

psycho-social, job-specific situational, and physical characteristics of the

respondents. Business jacket purchase and consumption behavior were also

assessed during this preliminary assessment process. Cronbach's alpha

coefficient was calculated to examine internal consistency for self-confidence

in dressing, self-monitoring, perceived importance of clothing, and job

satisfaction scales. Canonical correlation was utilized to assess overall

relationships between business jacket design preference and each set of

variables (personal characteristics, psycho-social identity, job-specific

situational characteristics, and physical profile). Only continuous variables

from each set were included in canonical correlation analysis.

For hypotheses testing, repeated measures analysis of variance with

an unstructured covariance matrix, as fit by PROC MIXED of SAS/STAT® was

utilized. The denominator degrees of freedom for conducting F-tests of

hypotheses testing used Satterthwaite Approximation. When repeated

measures ANOVA with an unstructured covariance matrix could not provide

estimates for F-tests, repeated measures ANOVA with compound symmetry

covariance matrix was utilized to estimate F statistics.

71
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The purpose of the study was to investigate the differences in jacket

design preferences of working women. A national cross-section of working

women were sampled with regard to business jacket design preference,

psycho-social identity, job-specific situational characteristics, physical

characteristics, and personal characteristics. Questionnaires were distributed

to 1,500 working females across the nation during the summer of 1999. A

copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

Descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage distribution,

mean scores, and standard deviation were tabulated to describe the sample.

Data were also treated with inferential statistics to test the hypotheses as

proposed in the research model (refer to Figure 3). Nine hypotheses were

formulated for this study to determine: (1) jacket design factors affecting jacket

design preference, (2) psycho-social motivation affecting jacket design

preference, (3) job related situational characteristics affecting jacket design

preference, and (4) physical characteristics affecting jacket design preference.

The results of the study are reported in four sections: (1) reliability of the

scales, (2) description of the sample, (3) analysis of the hypotheses, and

(4) summary of the findings.

72
 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Age
Marital Status
Educational Attainment
Number of Children
Age of Children
H2
Ethnicity
Contribution to Household Income
Household Size
Professional Wardrobe Expenditure
Employment Status
Employment Orientation
Occupation
Geographic Region

PSYCHO-SOCIAL IDENTITY

Self-Confidence in Dressing H3
Self-Monitoring
Perceived Importance of Clothing
Presence of Career Objectivity
Job Satisfaction

JACKET DESIGN ELEMENTS

Jacket Length (H1a) H1

Jacket Pattern (H 1b)
Jacket Silhouette (Hie) DESIGN PREFERENCES
Jacket Neckline Drop (Hid)
Jacket Collar Style (H1e)

JOB-SPECIFIC SITUATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS

H4
Implicit Dress Code
Visibility to Superiors and Public
Length of Time in Career
Corporate Culture

PHYSICAL PROFILE

Body Weight
Body Height H5
Body Silhouette
Hair Color
Eye Color
Dress Size
Body Frame Size

Figure 3. Hypotheses and Variables.

73
 Reliabiiitv of the Scales

There has been virtual consensus among researchers that a scale

needs to be reliable to be valid and to possess practical utility. Reliability has

been defined as "the degree to which measures are free from error and

therefore yield consistent results" (Peter, 1979, p.6). According to Peterson

(1994), acceptable or sufficient level of reliability varies depending upon a

function of research purpose, whether the research is exploratory or applied,

for example. Peterson summarized the most commonly practiced level of

reliability in behavioral research. The average coefficient alpha, summarized

by Peterson, served as a guideline for comparing the reliability obtained in this

study (refer to Table 6).

In addition, the mean coefficient alpha for varying research design

characteristics was also compared. The research design characteristics

compared were: sample size (a = .78), type of sample (a = .74), number of

scale categories (a = .75), number of items (.73 < a < .81), scale type

(a = .76), scale format (a = .77), nature of scale (a = .78), administration mode

(a = .77), scale orientation (a = .76), nature of construct (a = .79), and type of

research (a = .77). The coefficient alpha in the parenthesis indicates the

average alpha level suggested for the research characteristics used in this

study (Peterson, 1994). The instrument reliability was calculated utilizing

Cronbach's coefficient alpha.

74
Table 6. Comparison of Instrument Reliability of Current Study to Peterson (1994)

Mean a a
Construct Peterson (1994) Current Study

Self-Confidence in Dressing .76 .85

Self-Monitoring / Sensitivity to .71 .84

Expressive Behavior of Others

Self-Monitoring / Ability to Modify .71 .83

Self-Presentation

Self-Monitoring* .71 .82

Visibility to Superiors and Public .74 .88

Job Satisfaction .82 .88

Perceived Importance of Clothing .76 .84

Note: Self-monitoring was measured from two perspectives using the concept defined by
Lennox and Wolfe (1984): sensitivity to expressive behavior of others and ability to modify
self-presentation. Self-monitoring with asterisk (*) indicates overall self-monitoring after
combining sensitivity to expressive behavior of others and ability to modify self-presentation.

75
Overall alpha coefficient for the seven instruments tested exhibited high

reliability (a = .87): self-confidence in dressing (a = .85), self-monitoring

(a = .82), self-monitoring regarding ability to modify self-presentation (a = .82),

self-monitoring regarding sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others

(a = .84), perceived importance of clothing (a = .83), job satisfaction (a = .88),

and visibility to superiors and public (a = .88). The reliability of the

instruments, used in this study, were proven to be acceptable and sufficient,

according to the Peterson's study (1994).

Description of the Sample

The population for this study was working women in the United States

who wear business jackets to work at least once a week. The sample

(n=1,500) was randomly drawn from the consumer data base of National

Demographics and Lifestyles. Questionnaires were distributed to the sample

group during the summer of 1999. Participation was voluntary and

respondents were informed of confidentiality of the investigation.

(See Appendix A.)

Of the 1,500 questionnaires distributed, a total of 312 questionnaires

were returned by the respondents, of which 265 were deemed usable, yielding

a 20.8% response rate. Of the 47 questionnaires that were deemed unusable,

31 did not wear business jackets to work at least once a week, 7 were not

classified as working, and 9 were incomplete.

76
 The respondents ranged in age from 22 to 65. The mean age of the

respondents was 44 years (SD = 9.63). As presented in Table 7, the largest

percentage were in either the 36-45 (32.2%) or 46-55 (33.7%) age category.

Approximately half of the respondents (46.7%) had a bachelor's degree or

higher. The majority of the respondents were married (77.4%), working

full-time (81.4%), career-oriented (77.2%), Caucasian (89.8%), had at least

one child (78.9%), had a professional job (professional/technical,

manager/administrator, and sales worker) (75.9%), had two to four family

members (78.1%), and contributed at least 50% of household income (61.5%).

Personal characteristics are outlined in Figures 4 through 15.

Table 8 provides a summary of working women's responses to

business jacket purchase and consumption. Working women wore business

jackets to work 2-3 times a week (jVl = 2.54, SD = 1.38). The majority (76.0%)

of the respondents wore jackets during winter season, followed by fall (20.9%).

The average number of jackets in inventory was approximately 10 (M = 9.9,

SD =11.2). More than half of the respondents wore business jackets with

skirts (54.3%), while approximately 42% of the respondents wore jackets with

pants. More than half of the respondents (61.1%) purchased business jackets

as separates rather than part of a suit. The majority (70.8%) of the

respondents preferred department stores for purchasing professional apparel.

When purchasing professional apparel, the largest group of respondents paid

by either cash or check (42.3%) or bank credit card (44.5%).

77
 Table 7. Personal Characteristics of Working Women

Characteristics n %

Age
18-25 years 4 1.5
26-35 years 51 19.3
36-45 years 85 32.2
46-55 years 89 33.7
56+ 36 13.8
No response 0 0.0

Education
Less than high school 0 0.0
Some high school 0 0.0
High school 31 11.7
Some college 83 31.3
Associate degree 27 10.2
Bachelor's degree 56 21.1
Post-graduate professional training 8 3.0
(Law, Medicine, etc) '
Some graduate work 16 6.0
Master's degree 30 11.3
Doctoral degree 5 1.9
Post doctoral work 1 0.4
Other 8 3.0
No response 0 0.0

Marital Status
Single, never married 20 7.5
Divorced 27 10.2
Married 205 77.4
Widowed 7 2.6
Separated 3 1.1
Cohabiting 3 1.1
No response 0 0.0

Employment Status
Full-time 215 81.4
Part-time 48 18.2
Other 1 0.4
No response 1 0.4

Career Orientation
Just-a-job 60 22.8
Career 203 22.80
No response 2 0.8

78
 Table 7. (cont.)

Characteristics n %

Career Objectivity
Yes 141 53.4
No 122 46.2
Other 1 0.4
No response 1 0.4

Current Occupation
Professional / technical 115 44.1
Manager / administrator 68 26.1
Sales worker 15 5.7
Clerical worker 40 15.3
Crafts worker / machine 2 0.8
operator
Service worker 15 5.7
Government / military worker 6 2.3
No response 4 1.6

Geographic Location
West states 28 10.6
(MT, WY. ID, NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM,
WA, OR, CA, AK, HI)
North-East states 58 21.9
(ME, VT, MA, Rl, CT NH, NY, PA,
NJ)
North-Central states 86 32.5
(Wl, Ml, IL, IN, OH, ND, SD, lA,
MN, NE, KS, MO)
South states 93 35.1
(VW, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, MD,
DE, KY, TN, MS, AL, TX, OK, AR,
LA)
No response 0 00

Ethnic Background
Caucasian 238 89.8
African-American 12 4.5
Hispanic 4 1.5
Asian 2 0.8
Other 9 3.4
No response 0 0.0

79
 Table 7. (cont.)

Characteristics n %

Household Size
1 32 12.0
2 87 32.8
3 59 22.3
4 61 23.0
5 20 7.5
6 5 1.9
7 1 0.4
No response 0 0.0

Children
Yes 209 78.9
No 56 21.2
No response 0 0.0

Number of Children
0 56 21.2
1 55 20.8
2 84 31.8
3 43 16.3
4 20 7.6
5 3 1.1
6 0 0.0
7 1 0.4
8 2 0.8
No response 1 0.4

Percentage of Financial Contribution to

the Total Household Income
10% or below 17 6.5
11%-20% 20 7.7
21%-30% 27 10.4
31%-40% 36 13.8
41%-50% 58 22.3
51%-60% 32 12.3
61%-70% 18 6.9
71%-80% 4 1.5
81%-90% 6 2.3
91%-100% 42 16.2
No response 5 1.9

Note: The percentage total for each characteristic may not add up to 100 due to the rounding.
The no response rate was excluded from the frequency and percentage calculation.

80
 40
35
30
0) 25
O)
CO 20
0) 15
o 10
5
0
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56+
years years years years

Age

Figure 4. Age Distribution of the Respondents.

81
 35
30
25
(D
S) 20
3
CD '^
O
Q 10
a.
5

(O'
CO
o
Q . (/> a. 0)
CD
W
o
"0
o
r.^ (A
zt
—1
0)
Q.
(D 0) CD
(Q
O
O
"0
o IT
3- (Q O t o J2. CD
(A 3 ^ . (Q c o (5 (D
CD Q]
O O
o (D CD ? 0)
O O CD
en ^
(Q
Q.
£• ^^ 3 O
CD
o g. 0) (D
0)
(5" 0 o
(Q

Educational Attainment

Figure 5. Educational Attainment of the Respondents.

82
 90
80
70
60
(D
50
B 40
O
30
Q. 20

10
0
Single Divorced Married Widowed Separated Cohabiting

Mantal Status

Figure 6. Marital Status of the Respondents.

83
 100
80
60
O)
(0 H
c 40
O
0 20

Full-time Part-time Other

Employment Status

Figure 7. Employment Status of the Respondents.

100
^ 80
o^
0)
O) 60
(D
+-»
C 40
o
^
0) ?n
Q.

Just-a-job Career
Career Orientation

Figure 8. Career Orientation of the Respondents.

84
 60

50

iT 40
B 30
I 20
0)
CL 10

Yes No Other

Career Objectivity

Figure 9. Presence of Career Objectivity of the Respondents

50

40

30
m
20
o
CL 10

Occupation

Figure 10. Occupation of the Respondents.

85
 40
35
Ci^ 30
^ 25
B 20
§ 15
^ 10

1
West North-East North-Central South

Geographic Location

Figure 11. Geographic Location of the Respondents

100
^ 90
^ 80
^ 70
g) 60
iS 50
§ 40
o 30
0) 20
°- 10
0 Caucasian African- Hispanic Asian Other
American

Ethnic Background

Figure 12. Ethnic Background of the Respondents.

86
 1 2 3 4 5 6

Household Size

Figure 13. Household Size of the Respondents.

Number of Children

Figure 14. Number of Children of the Respondents.

87
0)

0)

(D
Q.

10% or 1 1 % - 2 1 % - 3 1 % - 4 1 % - 5 1 % - 6 1 % - 7 1 % - 8 1 % - 9 1 % -
below 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Financial Contribution to Household Income

Figure 15. Financial Contribution of the Respondents to the

Total Household Income.

88
 Table 8. Business Jacket Purchase and Consumption Behavior

Characteristics n %

Frequency of Wearing Business Jacket

1 78 29.9
2 59 22.6
3 62 23.8
4 33 12.6
5 26 10.0
6 2 0.8
7 0 0.0
8 1 0.4
No response 4 1.6

Season During Which Business

Jackets are Worn Most Frequently
Spring 4 1.5
Summer 3 1.1
Fall 55 20.9
Winter 200 76.0
No response 3 1.1

Number of Business Jackets in

Inventory
2-5 jackets 119 45.2
6-10 jackets 71 27.0
11-15 jackets 35 13.4
16-20 jackets 16 6.1
21-25 jackets 4 1.6
26-30 jackets 9 3.4
More than 30 jackets 9 3.6
No response 2 0.8

Apparel Items Most Frequently Worn

with Business Jackets
Dress 10 3.8
Skirt 144 54.3
Pants 110 41.5
Other 1 0.4
No response 0 0.0

Business Jacket Purchased as a Suit

or Separate
Suit 103 38.9
Separate 162 61.1
No response 0 0.0

89
 Table 8. (Cont.)

Characteristics n %

Preferred Retail Store Type for

Purchasing Professional Apparel
Specialty store 27 10.2
Discount store 22 8.3
Department store 187 70.8
Catalog 20 7.6
Other 8 3.0
No response 1 0.4

Payment Type Used for Purchasing

Professional Apparel
Cash or check 112 42.3
Bank credit card 118 44.5
Store or catalog card 35 13.2
Other 0 0.0
No response 0 0.0

Percentage of the Total Household

Income Spent on Professional Apparel
10% or below 140 53.2
11%-20% 81 30.8
21%-30% 36 13.7
31%-40% 4 1.5
41%-50% 1 0.4
51%-60% 1 0.4
61%-70% 0 0.0
7 1 % or more 0 0.0
No response 0 0.0

Note: The percentage may not exactly match up with frequency due to the rounding occurred
in combining categories. The percentage total for each characteristic may not add up to 100
due to the rounding. The no response rate was excluded from the frequency and percentage
calculation.

90
The largest portion (84%) of the respondents spent less than 20% of the total

household income on professional apparel. Figures 16 through 23 present

graphs for each item.

A summary of working women's responses to questions related to

psycho-social identity are presented in Table 9. For all of the items included,

the majority (69.1% to 97.8%) of the respondents answered on scale point 5,

6, or 7. More than half of the working women answered on scale point 7 for

the item stated "At work, I try to make a good impression by my appearance"

(56.2%), "I notice the inappropriateness of women's attire in business

situation" (52.8%), and "It is especially important for those dealing with the

public or clients to portray a professional appearance" (63.4%).

Tables 10 and 11 provide summaries of job-speclfic-situational

characteristics of working women. The majority of the respondents (78.5%)

indicated that they interact with the public or clients. A majority (83%)

indicated they interact with superiors. More than half (57.6%) of the

respondents indicated they feel to a relatively high degree that there is an

unwritten but expected dress code at work. The average size of thefirmsor

corporations was "Medium" (M = 2.1, SD = 0.87). The respondents indicated

a moderate level of conservativeness at work (M = 4.4, SD = 1.6). The

average male to female ratio at work was 38.5% (male) to 61.4% (female).

The average length respondents worked in their current job (M = 8.87,

SD = 7.84) and career (M = 8.3 SD = 7.32) was 9 years.

91
 Jacket Per Week

Figure 16. Frequency of Wearing Business Jacket Per Week.

80
70
60
0 50
40
c
30
o
20
10
0
Spring Summer Fall Winter

Season

Figure 17. Season During Which Business Jackets are Worn

Most Frequently by the Respondents.

92
 50
45
40
35
0) 30
25
20
(D
O 15

^±5
10

2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 More No

jackets jackets jackets jackets jackets jackets than 30 response
jackets

Jackets

Figure 18. Number of Jackets in Inventory.

Dress Skirt Pants other

Apparel Itenn

Figure 19. Apparel Items Most Frequently Worn with Jackets by

the Respondents.

93
 70
60
50
0)
O) 40
(0
c 30
0)
20
o
0) 10
0-
0
Suit Separate

Garment Set

Figure 20. Garment Set with Which Business Jacket is Most

Frequently Purchased by the Respondents.

80
70
60
0) 50
O)
(0 40
c 30
0)
20
o 10
a. 0
Specialty Discount Department Catalog other
store store store

Store Type

Figure 21. Preferred Retail Store Type for Purchasing

Professional Apparel by the Respondents.

94
 50
45
40
5:^ 35
0) 30
f 25
20
0
O 15
0)
Q-
10
5
0
Cash or check Bank credit
1
Store or catalog other
card card

Payment Type

Figure 22. Payment Type Used for Purchasing Professional

Apparel by the Respondents.

60

50

40
o
D) 30
c
O 20
0 10

0
10% or 11%-
=t21%- 31%- 41%- 51%- 61%- 71% or
below 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% more

Portion of the Total Household Income

Figure 23. Percentage of the Total Household Income Spent on

Professional Apparel Annually by the Respondents.

95
 265

265

265

265

265

265

265
"o
I-
h- 00 "* r«- CM 1^ "*
t CO r^ CM d
CM
ci CM
O) CD m

CO Oi a> CO 00
CD CO
CM
oo o in 00 CM
CM CO CO
CM CM
CO
CI
S m CM CO m 1^
00 CO

.^
in o^
CM CM in in a> CM
OC) ai cxi r^
'" • ^ CM CM 04
c
• ^
CM
0) 00 m in CD CM
E In in CD
o CD (D

.^
^ s^
N. Ti- in h.; CM o
c h-: in ai CM <J> "«t
'" • ^ -
CI o m CO
CM CO CO In CO

(0 o o>
CO CM TT CO r««. ai
E CO rr "^ <D cvi in Tf
(D
Li.
M— CI 00 CO CD in CO
o
>»
c CD a> o>
CM o 00
CM CO d
CO
CI in CO CO CO 00 CM
o
o
CO
I
o 00 00 00 o o
.c d d c> CO d
o
CO
Q. CI CM est CM 00 CO CO

J)

CO
c C3)
0)
c o
c (0 v> V) -fE"
<D
"(0
o
o
(0
k.
is O i 0)
? 0)
• ^ Q. o
c
(0
.2> T3
o
o
o c ca.
K^ o
5 g c
o jo 25
.c o *»-
— • > "O
0)

0 - 0
C (A
IH
c >- c
(0
£
o
.£2 a>
E
.Eg
c-2
I
" C (1) CD

TO >..52
"- c .t;
S
*- CD CJ)
i: c
(0 a) o
— *- (0
c -^ (0 OJ "(0 OJ
3 E 0) CO OJ . t i
<u $^ (0 t CO
T 3 CO CO c o < 3 W O -c 2 .c
0)
u
c0) c
8^ O)
E
CO * i
(A (0
•"
O) <D E .>»
8§ o ^!!
c
•c c CO
(0
0)
.isl ^ CO 15 (0
£ O w
"O (/>
o o c o — CO rt

c o M >l .t: 'is c •tf)

CO
• >

ll Eii E
d) (0 0) (1) ' ^ ^
o T3
c o <u "5 .c <o c -JS
^ » > E «J ?
O) o Q. **- o 2 0)
CO x >
c- -Q O
. = CO (0
_ 00 (0
Hi
E 0)
S QL ^L (0
— 0)
0) V) o> c
CO Q .

96
 265

265

265

265

265

265

265

265
"o

CM o

46.0

52.8

48.3

34.3

32.5

63.4
CD
d
m

149
CI

106

122

140

128

168
CD
O) 00

r^ ^

30.6

27.2

29.1

20.4

18.9

21.9
CD
in CO
CM CM

CI 00 CM
CD CD
CM r^ o 00
00 r^ m in in

CM ^_

14.7

15.8

13.6

18.9

17.7

12.5
i n o^
d 00

CI
CM
00 C3> CM CD o CO
CO CO in CO

CM oo 1^ CJ) in o O) in
h-i CM in h-i -"i-'
''" 00 • ^

CI CJ)
CO
in in o o "^
CM CO in

CO "«a- 00 T-
"sf 00 o O) 00
d CO • ^ d d d r^ d
c
CO CM CD CM
CM
O

CJ> CM ^ o m o
d d d d CO d
CO

CI CO CM CJ)

o CJ) 00 in C3) oo o
d d d d d

CI m CM m CM

O)
c
o > to .2> O) _c
(O
"to CD * - CO
(0
0)
Q.
Ii (0
S!
£ to-
O C
O (0
CO
c
o
•o i
c
Ic -o^
o •
3
O
"ro

(D
CO ro
E §2 a CO CL 2 o ^^ j5 o) JZ
CO
LT

X ro o CO «*-
.fine
Iity if wo men'

TJ 'to "(J UJ r Q.
O
0) O).
Q) C •g
<" 2? o Q . 0)
O
O) (0 0)
o c C«O CL to '2.2 £2 .
ic«- <u
o5 l<c
0) "- ro to C3) c «2 S
(0 >
c ^ (0 C
0) 'to Q. cS Cto
O ro, - .C0)O oi O - •=;
ro c c
CO 0)

2 2
5 o
.O
c
0)
Q.
0)
cV
(0 i2
£
o c o
>^ o .co^
CO . i ^ S- =
&.E
(0 <u
1^
ro
ro
o

ro '.^
CO
c
o
0)
o
c
a, ro
ro o
O
.C
CO
CO
•c (D ro
c " S
^ ^ ro
>» to ^5 «.. 0) c .t zs ro
CJ" 3
o
0th
ing

to 2 .ro -Q "TO
0) ro 0) •Jo
^
^
Q.
Q.
(0
51 k £ to i_ £ to
c to
^_ CO
CO
a t^ Q
Q. 0} M
£=

B o (D t E
ice

> s to (D " O

(0
Ir
< XI
(0 0)
50)
0) (0
i.2
o Si
~ c to
O CO ."C
~ X33 JK:
— CO
O

oS
f i
0) 0)
E ^
<u o
_
CO

Q.
^.^ "co
o 3
c
^_ .a
c "O

>
0) CL

E 2
CO
5fi £
Q) - ^
w£ o
««
0)

ILI -O
E o
a> ki
0)
( 0 CQ Q.

97
 m

265
m

265
m

265

265

265
B
"o m m
CO CD CD CD CD
CM Cvj CM CM CM

•>5 CD CM oo CO o o 00 CO CO
CO
d Cvi in CO d d d CM
CO m CM
CM
?)
CO
CI

106

106

113
o o CM in
CJ) o CD in
CO
00
00 CM

00 CO 00 00 CJ) ^ CM 00 CJ)
CD ob in
CD
CM
CO
CM
(6 00
CM c^
00
CM
CO
CM CM
CI in CO 00 OO CD 00 m 00
CD in in O) in

CD in 00 00 00 m in CD
in cvi
o cvi in in d ai CM CO
CM CM
CM
CI CO CM h- in
in o "* in
CD
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
CO
CD

CM CD CO CM 00 00 00 in
-a- «3-
d d in CJ) d O) d d 00
CM

00 CD m 00 CJ)
CM CM CM CM CM m

CO ^ Oi CJ) in CM O) in "^ "^

CO -^ d CM d d
c
o r-
Cl CJ) CO V O) CO T—
o^ m CO CM CO

ai .^_
J) CM CJ) CJ) 00 00 00 o -«»• "^ CJ)

.a d d d T-^ CO d d • ^

(D
I- in CM CM CO 00 CO
CI in oo

in o 00 in CJ) CO in
d d in 00 CO

CI CO CM CM in CO CJ)
CM
gs with mamagers

ro E
ften think of quitting.*
professiona lly is

1 am generally satiisfiecIwit h the kindof

ery satisfied

ro
ro E ro «
f quitting1 my job.
Wearing professionaid othi ng helps

path that
ays portr

ssio nal'dothing
gain respect from o thensat work.

c c
c to
> <D
ro o — fll E
Generally spealdng, 1 a
Organization sh ddn

can
Employees at al vels

o 5 C CJ)
0) ro -.;= c
5> to
Professional att ire.

E 0) S-3 o o X) ro
r" o) E 0) p *-* 0)
X) o^
People in my jo

= o
1 consider my pr

work 1 do in my

My job offers m
1 frequently thin
good investmen
professional ima
It is important fo

or colleagues, d
When attending

pleased with.
ob Satisfaction

with my job.
Important.

to
E
tu

98
 m m in

tal
CO CD CD
o CM CM CM
C3)
1- C

se codi
exhibit
CJ) CM CD
r^ in
d
m • ^
d
'"
CI
^B
m
CO
o "* > c
0) 0)
-* "«*•
•- TJ
x: o
CO •^ Q.
^ 00 a> VT to

atisfaction the re
ts' re sponse afte
C D ^ CO oc> 00
CM "^ '"
CI CO CJ) o
CD in

7.0
2.5

2.3
in °^
T" CM ^ C to

CI CO O) in It

espo
CO in "*

less
r- "- 0)
NO h-; T-
<D JO
•'I" o iri
00 d
CM CM £^ *^
.52"

e indica
number
CI CO CJ) 00
CM CD CD

0.9
1.0
0) (U
2.6

C O ^
• ^ £
^ • ^ ^~ "O 1-
Oi 0)
c •c 5
c\ r- CJ) O) oQ . —o
o CM CM
o^ 0) 0)
*- .c

sati fadion the respondenits exhibit.t

eve se coded . Therefore, the figiures
0) CM ^ 1 <^ CO CO
TabI

CO iri

CI CM O
3.0

5.7
0.8

CI CM 00 in

o T3 ^(U u: to
sfie

0)
c
^ ^ro ro
sz to 2 o
^
1 o 0)
Oi
C
0)
C 5s
^.^ o
iber s, the m
a fri d looki

tha terisk (*
barev

sim ir to mi
result
and

1 V ro o^ c(D ro
r=
1 TJ </) —
11 '^
Q. 58
this

ro
1 u— ^^
ihmen

c
nseo

0) ^
6 (1) <n c
<1) w<
<«=Q.
^
•^
"5.
o
g 0)
& 1-n ^iS B
E <D
J=
rti * ^
1 feel a

heh ighei
ote: The
accom

O Q..C -= _

<u o ^ 5-9
to £ 2 5 -.2,
E Z h-
B
1

99
 265

265
B
"o CD
CM

o CD CM
1^ CO
m CM
m

151
CI
s

142
CM ^ CD
CD
d CM
00

CI CD CJ)
c CM in
(D
E
o CO CO 00
i n o^ T— OC)

c
CI o CM CJ)
CO CM CO

CNJ CJ)
J) -^ ^ NI h>l
CD
d
E
(D CI CJ) CJ)
LL CM
CD
CO
cn c
CO CO CD 00 o
o in CM ai CL
CO
(0
'u.
0) CI CD
o
t5 CM c
i_
0)
3
CM in m TJ
O d in
CD
"TO CM
c o
o CM
Q.
"cD 3
•^ TJ
TJ
CO m CJ) CD
ro
O o
c
O CI CO CO
(U CM o 0)
Q. CM
o
CO TJ
I
(U
o 0) >» TJ
O
-3 o E O
B TJ —
c CO
CO
0) Oi
B o o c
.ro
"c 0) E o
(0 2 Q. O •Q.
n T3-d CO ^
h- 3 I- o
.2 o
c-g E
Q. o 5 ^.2
"O .2 >, ~ CO
c S E Q. > . > CO
(0 ro
12 3 P o
(D to >,.9 0) >»
x: c •a c a. o
*- o E CO
ro u. c
0) o
a .t; ro £i O 52 B
0) o
Oi
3
(0 CT
3 0) c. TJ 0)
(0 (0 CO £ | 8 i:
o _ CO Oi
0) CO ^
cV .E ro 0) p E
to —o _ T J «;= Oi
E '55 a o
0) • > E z

100
 Table 11. Job-Specific-Situational Characteristics of
Working Women: Corporate Culture

Characteristics n %

Size of the Firm / Corporation

Small 81 30.7
Medium 70 26.5
Large 110 41.7
Other 3 1.1
No response 1 0.3

Conservativeness of the Firm /

Corporation
1 (Not at all conservative) 14 5.3
2 19 7.2
3 28 10.6
4 89 33.7
5 46 17.4
6 40 15.2
7 (Extremely conservative) 28 10.6
No response 1 0.4

Male Ratio
10% or below 64 24.6
11%-20% 19 7.3
21%-30% 22 8.4
31%-40% 41 15.8
41%-50% 43 16.5
51%-60% 30 11.6
61%-70% 15 5.8
71%-80% 17 6.5
5 1.9
81%-90%
4 1.6
91%-100%
5 1.9
No response

Female Ratio
7 2.8
10% or below 5.4
14
11%-20% 6.5
17
21%-30% 12.0
31%-40% 31
41 15.8
41%-50% 15.0
51%-60% 39
18 6.9
61%-70% 12.3
32
71%-80% 8.1
81%-90% 21
40 15.4
91%-100% 1.9
No response 5

101
 Table 11. (cont.)

Characteristics n %

Years in the Firm / Corporation

Less than 1 year 23 8.7
1-2 years 42 16.0
3-5 years 57 21.7
6-10 years 54 20.4
11-15 years 43 16.3
16-20 years 21 8.0
21-25 years 11 4.2
More than 26 years 13 5.0
No response 1 0.4

Years in Current Career

Less than 1 year 20 7.5
1-2 years 39 15.0
3-5 years 68 26.0
6-10 years 65 24.8
11-15 years 37 14.1
16-20 years 10 3.8
A A

21-25 years 14 5.3

More than 26 years 9 3.5
No response
'5
3 1.2

Number of Customers / Clients Daily

Encounter
20 7.8
No interaction 39.6
102
1-10 18.3
47
11-20 28 10.9
21-30 10 3.9
1 w
31-40 5.4
14
41-50 37 14.6
More than 50 7 2.7
No response

Number of Supervisors / Colleagues

Daily Encounter 7.6
20
No interaction 169 64.6
1-10 36 13.7
11-20 13 5.0
21-30 9 3.4
31-40 7 2.7
41-50 8 3.2
More than 50 3 1.2
No response

L- u^ro^torictir mav not add up to 100 due to the rounding

102
The average number of customers encountered daily at work was 55

(SD = 203.59), while the average number of colleagues encountered daily at

work was 19 (SD = 123.95).

The subjects' physical profiles are summarized in Table 12. The

respondents had an average height of 5'4" (SD = 1.45) and an average weight

of 154.9 lbs (SD = 36.69). Approximately half of the respondents (46.4%) had

a medium-sized body frame. The most purchased garment size category was

misses (44.5%), followed by petite (27.5%) and women's (20.4%). The

average dress size purchase was size 12 (SD = 5.57). More than half of the

respondents had brown hair (56.6%), followed by blonde (24.9%).

Approximately half of the respondents had brown eyes (47.3%), followed by

blue (29.5%), and green (20.8%). Approximately twenty-five percent of the

respondents had a triangular figure type, followed by an ideal type (17.5%),

rounded type (16.0%), and hourglass type (11.0%).

The subjects' responses to the 18 business jacket designs are

summarized in Table 13 in terms of means and standard deviations. The

business jacket design codes are listed in the order of their appearance in

section I of the questionnaire. To further describe the respondents' jacket

design preference, canonical correlation was utilized. The results of the

canonical correlation analysis are summarized in Table 14. There was only

one canonical linear combination found to be significant (Likelihood ratio = .67,

F(54, 718.9) = 1.9, p < .0001) with a correlation coefficient of .48.

103
 Table 12. Physical Profile of Working Women

Characteristics n %

Height
5'or shorter 12 4.6
5'1"-5'4" 105 39.9
5'4"-5'7" 119 45.1
57" or taller 28 10.7
No response 1 0.4

Weight
100 lbs or less 4 1.6
101 lbs-120lbs 38 14.6
121 lbs-140lbs 44 16.8
141 lbrs-160lbs 78 29.6
161 lbs-180lbs 58 22.0
181 lbs-200lbs 21 8.0
201 lbs or more 21 8.1
No response 1 0.4

Body Frame Size

Petite 33 12.5
Small 40 15.1
Medium 123 46.4
Large 53 20.0
Extra-Large 16 6.0
No response 0 0.0

Generally Purchased Garment Size

Category
Petite 73 i(.^
Tall 19 7.2
Misses 118 44.5
Women's 54 20.4
Other 1 0.4
No response 0 0.0

Generally Purchased Dress Size

Size 2 or smaller 5 1.9
Size 3-Size 4 11 4.2
Size 5-Size 6 17 6.4
Size 7-Size 8 38 14.4
Size9-Size 10 35 13.3
Size 11-Size 14 90 34.0
Size 16-Size20 53 20.0
Size 22-Size 26 13 4.9
"^ 12
Size 28 or larger ^ ^Q
No response

104
 Table 12. (cont.)

Characteristics n %

Hair Color
Blonde 66 24.9
Brown 150 56.6
Black 19 7.2
Red 14 5.3
Other 16 6.0
No response 0 0.0

Eye Color
Brown 125 47.3
Blue 78 29.5
Green 55 20.8
Black 3 1.1
Other 3 1.1
No response 1 0.4

Figure Type
Ideal type 46 17.5
Triangular type 65 24.7
Inverted-triangular type 20 7.6
Rectangular type 15 5.7
Hourglass type 29 11.0
Diamond shaped type 22 8.4
Tubular type 24 9.1
Rounded type 42 16.0
No response 2 0.8

Note: The percentage total for each characteristic may not add up to 100 due to the rounding.
The no response rate was excluded from the frequency and percentage calculation.

105
 Table 13. Means and Standard Deviation of Business Jacket Design
Preference

Business Jacket
Design Code N M SD

12020 265 3.649057 0.996

21220 265 1.973585 1.191
10111 265 3.698113 1.007
22011 265 3.090566 1.29
00000 265 3.766038 1.11
11110 265 3.437736 0.955
12201 265 2.177359 1.088
20221 265 1.577359 0.889
02212 265 2.426415 1.178
00210 265 2.309434 1.074
21012 265 2.796226 1.36
22100 265 3.249057 1.183

11202 265 2.166038 0.989

02122 265 3.6 1.036

20102 264 2.924242 1.215

01121 265 3.611321 1.027

10022 264 3.291667 1.002

01001 265 3.883019 1.025

Note- Five-digit jacket design code indicates levels in each variable: first digit indicates jacket
length (0 being short. 1 being hip level. 2 being tunic level); second digit indicates jacket
pattern (0 being plaid. 1 being pin-striped, 2 being solid); third digit indicates jacket silhouette
" g fitted. 1 being semi-fitted. 2 being looselyfitted);fourth digit indicates jacket neck me
drop (0 being ow/waist deep. 1 being medium/below bust. 2 being h'9h/aboye bus ),^^^^^^^^^
last digit indicates jacket collar style (0 being no lapel. 1 being nof^^dcoNar_2 being shawl
collar) The respondents rated their degree of preference for each jacket design on 1 to 5
Likert type scale, 1 indicating not attractive and 5 indicating very attractive.

106
 Table 14. Summary of Canonical Corelation Analysis

Standardized Canonical Standardized Canonical

Coefficients for the "VAR" Coefficients for the "WITH"
Variables Variables (VI) Variables (Wl)

12020 0.0995
21220 0.5599*
10111 0.0639
22011 -0.6474*
00000 -0.2294*
11110 0.0149
12201 -0.0479
20221 -0.0044
02212 -0.2522*
00210 0.0660
21012 0.1395
22100 -0.0118
11202 0.0838
02122 -0.2694*
20102 0.0724
01121 -0.0845
10022 -0.0049
01001 -0.0185

Age 0.7238*

Height 0.0014

Dress Size 0.5227"

Note: Canonical correlation coefficient between VI and Wl was .48, and the 'ikenh°od ratio
was .67 (p < .0001). Variables with asterisk (*) are considered to be fairly significant variables
for the linear combination VI and Wl.

107
 As illustrated in Figure 24, the respondents who were older in age and

larger in dress size exhibited a relatively high preference for jacket design

#21220 (tunic level length, pin-striped pattern, loosely-fitted silhouette, above

bust neckline, and no lapel collar style). The same respondents exhibited a

relatively low preference for jacket design #22011 (tunic length, solid, fitted,

below bust neckline, and notched collar style), #00000 (short length, plaid

pattern, fitted silhouette, waist deep neckline drop, and no lapel collar style),

#02212 (short length, solid pattern, loosely-fitted silhouette, below bust

neckline, and shawl collar), #02122 (short length, solid pattern, semi-fitted

silhouette, above bust neckline, and shawl collar). The results were reversed

for respondents who are younger in age and smaller in dress size.

Analvsis of Hypotheses

Nine hypotheses were analyzed using SAS/STAT^ (refer to Figure 3).

The hypotheses were tested using repeated measures Analysis of Variance

with an unstructured covariance matrix, as fit by PROC MIXED of

SAS/STAT^ . The denominator degrees of freedom for conducting F-tests for

hypotheses testing used Satterthwaite Approximation. When repeated

measures ANOVA with an unstructured covariance matrix could not provide

estimates for F-tests, repeated measures ANOVA with compound symmetry

covariance matrix was utilized to estimate F statistics.

108
 a
N
> (D
N
w
(0 0) W
res
O ) CO
D) < w
< Q
c CD c a?
'^m L_
T)
O ro o E
> - CO

o
O
ro
o
'c
CO o
c
ro
O

y^ c
o
ro
CO

CN
0
S T- O CM CM O T- O CM CM
^j ' ^ O T- CN CNI T- O T- CM
1^ O O CM •«- CM O O CM T-
CM
•»- CM O CM CM
CM
C MOOCMOCMO CN CM O O O
0)$ $ $ $ > .c jz .c x:
~ o o o o g O) D) O) O)
_J X X X X

109
 Due to the fact that this study employed 18 jacket designs among 243

possible designs, and the five design factors (jacket length, jacket pattern,

jacket silhouette, neckline drop, and collar style) were crifical infittingthe

statistical model, the five factors were constantly included in the model. In

addition, each independent factor (e.g., age, self-confidence in dressing,

implicit dress code, height, etc) was entered into the model one at a time. For

the convenience of stating the statistical models tested, jacket design

preference, jacket length, jacket pattern, jacket silhouette, neckline drop, and

collar style will, here after, be termed as Pref, F1 (Fn, F12), F2 (F21, F22), F3

(F31, F32), F4 (F41, F42), and F5 (F51, F52), respecfively. The statistical model

used to test hypotheses l a through hypothesis 1e was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + E-

The statistical models used to test hypothesis 2 through 5 are reported in the

order of their appearance.

For this study, only two factor interactions were included in the

hypotheses testing because there were too many parameters being estimated

and the repeated measures ANOVA could not provide estimates for more than

two factor interactions. Although using 18 jacket design combinations of 243

possible combinations was the most efficient way of esfimating parameters for

the variables included in the study, in some cases, it could not provide enough

information to estimate the parameters for two factor interaction terms.

Therefore, not all of the two factor interaction terms could be estimated.
110
Repeated measures Analysis of Variance was used to identify significant

Interaction terms in explaining variance in jacket design preference.

Significant interactions between nominal variables were further

examined by comparing Least Squares Means. Significant Interactions among

continuous variables were investigated using the "Solution" option in

SAS/STAT® procedures. The solution option provided beta estimates for the

factors fitted in the model creating dummy variables for 5 design factors

(nominal variables). To calculate the predicted value for jacket design

preference, several values between minimum and maximum values for the

continuous variables were plugged into the model. For the convenience in

calculation, the excluded categories (F1 = 2, F2 = 2, F3 = 2, F4 = 2, and

F5 = 2) were used to calculate the predicted value.

Hvpothesis la

Jacket length (F1) affects the subjects' business jacket design

preference. Jacket length was found to be significant (F(2,264) = 65.42,

p < .0001). Therefore, hypothesis la was accepted.

Hvpothesis 1b

Jacket pattern (F2) affects the subjects' business jacket design

preference. Jacket pattern was found to be significant (F(2,264) = 12.16,

p < .0001). Therefore, hypothesis lb was accepted.

Ill
Hvpothesis 1c

Jacket silhouette affects the subjects' business jacket design

preference. Jacket silhouette was found to be significant (F(2,264) = 329.05,

p < .0001). Therefore, hypothesis 1c was accepted.

Hvpothesis 1d

Jacket neckline drop affects the subjects' business jacket design

preference. Jacket neckline drop was found to be significant (F(2,264) = 9.02,

p = .0002). Therefore, hypothesis Id was accepted.

Hvpothesis 1e

Jacket collar style affects the subjects' business jacket design

preference. Jacket collar style was found to be significant (F(2,264) = 8.27,

p = .0003). Therefore, hypothesis 1e was accepted.

Interactions Related to Hypotheses l a - l e

The interaction effect among the five factors were tested. Six

interactions related to hypothesis l a through 1e were significant.

1. Interaction between Jacket Length and Jacket Pattern.

The statistical model used to test this interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + p6FrF2 + s.

112
The interaction between jacket length and jacket pattem was significant

(F(4, 264) = 13.37, p < .0001). According to the Least Squares Means

Analysis (refer to Figure 25), the respondents greatly preferred the short

jacket length with solid pattern and the hip level jacket with plaid pattem.

Overall, the tunic level jacket was least preferred among the three jacket

lengths, and its preference level was consistent regardless of the patterns

used in the design.

2. Interaction between Jacket Length and Jacket Collar Style.

The statistical model used to test this interaction was:

Pref = po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + P6FrF5 + 8.

The interaction between jacket length and jacket collar style was significant

(F(4, 264) = 13.37, p < .0001). Overall, the respondents preferred the short

jacket regardless of the collar style (refer to Figure 26). Preference for the hip

level jacket decreased when combined with a shawl collar. The tunic length

jacket was preferred the most when combined with no lapel, and preferred the

least when combined with a shawl collar. The notched collar style was

preferred more with short and hip length jackets.

3. Interaction between Jacket Pattern and Jacket Silhouette.

The statistical model used to test this interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + P6F2*F3 + 8.

113
 •Jacket Length: Short
•Jacket Length: Hip
Jacket Length: Tunic

Plaid Pin-striped Solid

Jacket Pattern

Figure 25. The Effect of Interaction between Jacket Length and

Jacket Pattern.

-•—Jacket Length:
Short
-•— Jacket Length:
Hip
Jacket Length:
Tunic

No Lapel Notched Collar Shawl Collar

Collar Style

Figure 26. The Effect of Interaction between Jacket Length and

Jacket Collar Style.

114
The interaction between jacket pattem and jacket silhouette was found to be

significant (F(4, 264) = 18.47, p < .0001). Overall, the respondents preferred

the fitted and semi-fitted jacket silhouettes regardless of the patterns used in

the design. The loosely-fitted silhouette was the least preferred silhouette.

Jacket design preference for the loosely-fitted silhouette dramatically dropped

regardless of the patterns (refer to Figure 27).

4. Interaction between Jacket Pattern and Jacket Neckline Drop.

The statistical model used to test this interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + P6F2*F4 + 8.

The interaction between jacket pattern and jacket neckline drop was found to

be significant (F(4, 264) = 14.44, p < .0001). As illustrated in Figure 28, the

respondents' preference for plaid and solid patterns was consistent regardless

of the changes in neckline drop. Preference for pin-striped patterns decreased

when combined with below bust necklines. Pin-striped patterns were

preferred when combined with either the waist deep or above bust neckline.

Below bust neckline designs were preferred the most for solid patterns.

5. Interaction between Jacket Silhouette and Jacket Collar Style.

The statistical model used to test this particular interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + P6F3*F5 + 8.

115
 -Jacket Pattem:
Plaid
•Jacket Pattem:
Pin-striped
Jacket Pattem:
Solid

Fitted Semi-fitted Loosely-fitted

Jacket Silhouette

Figure 27. The Effect of Interaction between Jacket Pattern and

Jacket Silhouette.

(D 4
O
C
*=: 3 .5
0)
>*— •Jacket Pattern:
3 Plaid
CL
c •Jacket Pattern:
2.5
Pin-striped
(D 2
Q Jacket Pattern:
*-•
0) Solid
J^ 1.5
o
ro

Waist Deep Below Bust Above Bust

Neckline Drop

Figure 28. The Effect of Interaction between Jacket Pattern and

Jacket Neckline Drop

116
The interaction between jacket silhouette and jacket collar style was found to

be significant (F(4, 264) = 13.98, p < .0001). As depicted in Figure 29, the

loosely-fitted silhouette was preferred the least among the three silhouettes.

Particularly, the loosely-fitted silhouette with a notched collar was the least

preferred combination. The fitted and semi-fitted jacket was consistently

preferred regardless of the collar style used.

6. Interaction between Jacket Neckline Drop and Jacket Collar Style.

The statistical model used to test this particular interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + P6F4*F5 + 8.

The interaction between jacket neckline drop and jacket collar style was found

to be significant (F(4, 264) = 18.61, p < .0001). Based on the results, the

notched collar was the most preferred collar style for the below bust neckline

design and was the least preferred collar style for the above bust neckline

design. No lapel was the most preferred collar style for the above bust

neckline design, while it was the least preferred collar style for the below bust

neckline design (refer to Figure 30).

Hvpothesis 2

The personal characteristics of the subjects affect the subjects'

business jacket design preference. The statistical model used to test the

hypothesis was:

117
 -Jacket Silhouette:
Fitted
•Jacket Silhouette:
Semi-fitted
Jacket silhouette:
Loosely-fitted

No lapel Notched Collar Shawl Collar

Collar Style

Figure 29. The Effect of Interaction between Jacket Silhouette

and Jacket Collar Style.

0) 3.5
o - Neckline Drop:
c
(D Waist deep
-Neckline Drop:
2.5 Below bust
CL
c Neckline Drop:
Kjf p Abo\e bust
(D

a 1.5

No lapel Notched Collar Shawl Collar

Collar Style

Figure 30. The Effect of Interaction between Jacket Neckline

Drop and Jacket Collar Style.

118
 Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32 + P41F41

+ P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PePersonal Characteristics + 8.

All hypothesized personal characteristics (refer to Figure 3) were tested by

entering one variable at a time into the model. None of the personal

characteristics were found to be directly significant. However, several

interactions between personal characteristics and jacket design elements were

significant.

Interactions Related to Hypothesis 2

The interaction effect between each personal characteristic and five

design factors were tested. Three interactions related to hypothesis 2 were

found to be significant.

1. Interaction between Jacket Pattern and Age.

The statistical model used to test this interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PeAge + P7Age*F2 + E.

The interaction between jacket pattem and age was significant (F(2, 259) =

5.30, p = .0055). The Solution option of SAS/STAT® was utilized to further

investigate the interaction effect. The result was plotted, and the results are

presented in Figure 31. Preference for the plaid and pin-striped patterns were

not significantly affected by age. However, younger respondents preferred the

solid pattern more than older respondents (refer to Figure 31).

119
 2. Interaction between Jacket Silhouette and Age.

The statistical model used to test this interaction was:

Pref = po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PeAge + P7Age*F3 + s.

The interaction between jacket silhouette and age was found to be significant

(F(2, 259) = 9.94, p < .0001). To further examine the interaction effect, the

Solution option of SAS/STAT® procedure was utilized. The results were

plotted and presented in Figure 32. Overall, the fitted and semi-fitted jacket

silhouettes were preferred more than the loosely-fitted silhouette. Preference

for the loosely-fitted silhouette increased as age increased, while preference

for the fitted and semi-fitted silhouette decreased as age increased. In other

words, younger respondents prefer the fitted and semi-fitted silhouettes more

than the loosely-fitted silhouette, while older respondents prefer the

loosely-fitted silhouette more than the fitted and semi-fitted silhouette (refer to

Figure 32).

3. Interaction between Jacket Length and Ethnicity.

The statistical model used to test this particular interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32

+ P41F41 + P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PeEthnicityTI + 8.

The interaction between jacket length and ethnicity was found to be significant

(F(12, 260) = 2.06, p = .0200).

120
CD
^ 3.5
CD
^ Jacket Pattern:
o
Plaid
CD ^
_H—Jacket Pattern:
S^ 2.5 Pin-striped
O)
(O ^^—Jacket Pattem:
CD
Q 2
Solid
•4-'

(D
I^Ll
ro

25 35 45 55 65

Age

Figure 31. The Interacfion Effect between Jacket Pattern and

Age.

CD
O
c
CD
CD
<+- .Jacket Silhouette:
(D Fitted
i—
CL
.Jacket Silhouette:
O) Semi-fitted
Oi
CD Jacket Silhouette:
Q Loosely-fitted
%
O
ro

Figure 32. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Silhouette and

Age.

121
Because of the relatively low F ratio and high p-value when compared with

other interactions, the results needed to be interpreted with caution. The

interaction effect was further investigated by comparing Least Squares Means

(refer to Figure 33). The results indicated that Caucasian, African-American,

and Hispanic working women preferred short and hip length jackets. Asian

working women were the only group that preferred the tunic length the most

and the short length the least.

Hvpothesis 3

Psycho-social characteristics of the subjects affect the subjects'

business jacket design preference. The statistical model used to test the

hypothesis was:

Pref = po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32 + P41F41

+ P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PePsycho-Social Identity + e.

All hypothesized psycho-social characteristics (refer to Figure 3) were tested

by entering one variable at a time into the model. Ability to modify

self-presentation (F(1, 263) = 9.49, p = .0023) and self-monitoring (F(1, 263) =

9.18, p = .0027) were found to be significant in explaining variance in jacket

design preference.

122
Interactions Related to Hvpothesis 3

The interaction effect between each psycho-social characteristic and

the five design factors were tested. Two interactions related to hypothesis 3

were significant. To further examine the interaction effect, the Solution option

of SAS/STAT® procedure was utilized.

1. Interaction between Jacket Collar Style and Self-Monitoring.

The statistical model used to test this particular interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32 + P41F41

+ P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PeSM + P7SM*F5 + 8.

The interaction between jacket collar style and self-monitoring was found to be

significant (F(2, 263) = 3.55, p = .0301). Because of the relatively low F ratio

and high p-value when compared with other interaction terms, the results were

interpreted with caution. The results indicated that preference for the no lapel

style was preferred regardless of the changes in self-monitoring. The no lapel

style was preferred more by respondents with low self-monitoring. The

notched and shawl collars were preferred the least by low self-monitors.

Preference for the notched and shawl collar increased as the respondents'

degree of self-monitoring increased (refer to Figure 34).

3. Interaction between Jacket Collar Style and Ability to Modify

Self-Presentation.

The statistical model used to test this particular interaction was:

Pref = po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32 + P41F41

123
 -^—Jacket Length:
Short

-fl—Jacket Length:
Hip

-4—Jacket Length:
Tunic

Caucasian African- Hispanic Asian other

American

Ethnicity

Figure 33. The Interaction Effect between Jacket Length and

Ethnicity.

(D
O 3.5
C
(D

^(D 3 Jacket Collar Style:

<D
No lapel
Jacket Collar Style:
c 2.5
O) Notched
CO
(D Jacket Collar Style:
Q
• * - •
Shawl
CD
O
ro

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Self-Monitoring

Figure 34. The Interacfion Effect between Jacket Collar Style

and Self-Monitoring.

124
 + P42F42 + p5iF5i + P52F52 + PeAMSP + p7AMSP*F5 + s.

The interaction between jacket collar style and ability to modify

self-presentation was found to be significant (F(2, 263) = 6.25, p < .0022).

The results Indicated that preference for the no lapel style was preferred

regardless of the changes in ability to modify self-presentafion. The no lapel

style was preferred more by respondents with low ability to modify

self-presentation. The notched and shawl collars were preferred the least by

respondents with a low ability to modify self-presentation. Preference for the

notched and shawl collar increased as the respondents' ability to modify

self-presentation increased (refer to Figure 35).

Hvpothesis 4

Job-speclfic-situational characteristics of the subjects affect the

subjects' business jacket design preference. The statistical model used to test

the hypothesis was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32 + P41F41

+ P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PeJob-Specific Situafional Characterisfics + 8.

All hypothesized job-related situafional characteristics (e.g., implicit dress

code, visibility to superiors and public, length of fime in career, and corporate

culture, etc) were tested by entering one variable at a fime into the model.

None of the hypothesized variables were found to be significant.

125
Interactions Related to Hvpothesis 4

The interacfion effect between each job-specific-situational

characteristic and the five design factors were also tested, and none of them

were found to be significant.

Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 5 stated physical characteristics of the subjects affect the

subjects' business jacket design preference. The statistical model used to test

the hypothesis was:

Pref = po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32 + P41F41

+ P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PePhysical Characterisfics + 8.

All hypothesized physical characteristics (refer to Figure 3) were tested by

entering one variable at a fime into the model. Figure type (F(7, 255) = 2.13,

p = .0406) had a low level of significance in explaining variance in jacket

design preference.

Interactions Related to Hypothesis 5

The interaction effect between each physical characteristic and the five

design factors were also tested. Least Squares Means were used to further

investigate the interaction effect. Three interactions related to hypothesis 5

were found to be significant.

126
 1. Interacfion between Jacket Silhouette and Figure Type.

The statistical model used to test this interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32 + P41F41

+ P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PaFlgure Type*F3 + s.

The interacfion between jacket silhouette and figure type was found to be

significant (F(21, 255) = 2.10, p = .0039). Because of the relatively low F rafio

and high p-value when compared with other interaction terms, the results were

interpreted with caution. Generally, the fitted and semi-fitted silhouettes were

preferred over the loosely-fitted silhouette regardless of figure type (refer to

Figure 36). Preference for the loosely-fitted silhouette slightly increased when

a respondent had a diamond shaped figure.

2. Interacfion between Jacket Neckline Drop and Figure Type.

The statistical model used to test this interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 + P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32 + P41F41

+ P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PeFlgure Type*F4 + 8.

The interacfion between jacket neckline drop and figure type was found to be

significant (F(21, 255) = 1.65, p = .0394). However, because of the relatively

low F ratio and high p-value when compared with other interaction terms, the

results were interpreted with caution. The results indicated that individuals

with triangular and diamond figure types preferred the below bust neckline,

while individuals with rectangular figure types spurned the below bust neckline

(Figure 37). The low F ratio suggested relatively weak support for the results.

127
 3. Interacfion between Jacket Collar Style and Figure Type.

The statistical model used to test this particular interaction was:

Pref = Po + P11F11 -f P12F12 + P21F21 + P22F22 + P31F31 + P32F32 + P41F41

+ P42F42 + P51F51 + P52F52 + PeFlgure Type*F5 + 8.

The interaction between jacket collar style andfiguretype was found to be

significant (F(21, 255) = 2.65, p = .0002). The Least Squares Means

comparison indicated that individuals with diamond shaped bodies preferred

the no lapel style the most among the three collar types (Figure 38).

Individuals with rectangular body shapes least preferred the shawl collar.

However, the low F ratio suggests the results are not strongly supported.

Summary of the Findings

In summary, significance was identified through the use of repeated

measures of analysis of variance with an unstructured covariance matrix, as fit

by PROC MIXED of SAS/STAT®. The denominator degrees of freedom for

conducting the F-tests of hypotheses used Satterthwaite Approximation.

When repeated measures ANOVA with an unstructured covariance matrix

could not provide estimates for F-tests, a compound symmetry covariance

matrix was utilized to estimate the F statistics.

Hypotheses la through 1e tested the effect of jacket design factors on

business jacket design preference. Jacket length, pattern, silhouette.

128
 -^—Jacket Collar Style:
No lapel
.^1—Jacket Collar Style:
Notched
-^—Jacket Collar Style:
Shawl

10 20 30 40

Ability to Modify Self-Presentation

Figure 35. The Interacfion Effect between Ability to Modify

Self-Presentafion and Jacket Collar Style.

0)
o
c . . . ^ — J a c k e t Silhouette:
(D
(D Fitted
«<—
CD . Jacket Silliouette:
C 2.5 Semi-fitted
D)
U)
(D 2 JacketSilhouette;
Loosely- fitted
Q
0)
1.5
o 1
(0

^ # .# .#^ J'

Figure Type

Figure 36. The Interacfion Effect between Jacket Silhouette and

Figure Type.

129
 ^ Neckline Drop:
Wa ist dee p

. Neckline Drop:
Belowbust

- ^ £ — N e c k l i n e Drop:
A bove bust

^ .^ >^J ^'^"J # <

k'y
.9"^•
&
^
Figure Type

Figure 37. The Interacfion Effect between Jacket Neckline

Drop and Figure Type.

Collar style:
No lapel
Collar style:
Notched
Collar Style:
Shawl

#^ # N.^ X^ AT'
\i>^ ^ .^•O^ /-N" ^
/y
^ ^ i<& ^^" o^
^
^^ Figure Type

Figure 38. The Interacfion Effect between Jacket Collar Style

and Figure Type.

130
neckline drop, and collar styles were found to be significant. Six interacfions

were found to be significant: jacket length and pattern, jacket length and collar

style, jacket pattern and silhouette, jacket pattern and neckline drop, jacket

silhouette and collar style, jacket neckline drop and collar. Therefore,

hypotheses 1a through 1e were accepted.

Hypothesis 2 tested the effect of personal characteristics on business

jacket design preference. None of the personal characteristics were found to

be significant. However, three interactions were significant: age and jacket

pattern, age and jacket silhouette, and ethnicity and jacket length. Therefore,

hypothesis 2 was accepted.

Hypothesis 3 tested the effect of psycho-social characteristics on

business jacket design preference. Ability to modify self-presentation and

overall self-monitoring were found to be significant. Two interactions were

found to be significant: self-monitoring and jacket collar style, and ability to

modify self-presentafion and jacket collar. Consequently, hypothesis 3 was

accepted.

Hypothesis 4 tested the effect of job-speclfic-situational characteristics

on business jacket design preference. None of the job-specific-situational

characterisfics were found to be significant. In addifion, none of the

interacfions were significant.

Hypothesis 5 tested the effect of physical characteristics on business

jacket design preference. Among the hypothesized variables tested, only

131
figure type was found to be significant. The Interactions betweenfiguretype

and jacket silhouette, figure type and jacket neckline drop, andfiguretype and

jacket collar style were found to be significant. Therefore, hypothesis 5 was

accepted.

132
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Consumer evaluafion of apparel has been affected by three sources:

the aesthetic quality of garments, personal characteristics of the viewer, and

the environment. Many empirical studies have documented design factors

influencing the aesthefic quality of apparel, but few have focused on individual

characteristics of the viewer. Due to the fact that individual subjectivity may

influence the aesthefic evaluafion process, this research was intended to

investigate consumer characteristics in relation to the aesthetic preference of

apparel. This chapter includes the following five aspects of the study:

(a) summary of the study, (b) summary of thefindings,(c) conclusions and

implicafions, and (d) recommendafions for further research.

Summary of the Study

The overall purpose of the study was to investigate the differences in

jacket design preferences of working women. An understanding of consumer

aesthetic preference is essential for efl'icient communicafion between

consumers and decision makers in the texfile complex. Using the proposed

research model, the study was designed to determine (1) how design

attributes affect consumer jacket design preference, and (2) how consumer

characterisfics affect consumer jacket design preference.

133
 The populafion for the study was working women who wear business

jackets to work at least once a week. A national cross-section of 1,500 was

drawn for the study through a random sampling technique by Nafional

Demographics & Lifestyles.

Nine hypotheses were formulated for testing the proposed research

model. Hypotheses addressed the relafionships between consumer design

preference and: (a) design attributes, (b) personal characteristics,

(c) psycho-social identity, (d) job-specific-situational characteristics, and

(e) physical characteristics.

A self-administered quesfionnaire was developed to elicit informafion

from working women. A pilot study was conducted to test (a) the contents of

the instruments regarding clarity in wording, (b) comprehension of the

instrucfions and terminology, and (c) fatigue. As a result, revisions were

made.

Collecfion of research data followed an adaptafion of the Dillman

Method for implemenfing mail surveys (Salant & Dillman, 1994). During the

summer of 1999, a total of 1,500 quesfionnaires were mailed to randomly

selected consumers. A preliminary postcard was mailed to inform the subjects

of the upcoming quesfionnaire and the research purpose, and to ask for

participafion. The actual survey was mailed one week after the postcard. Two

weeks after mailing the survey, a postcard reminder was sent. Six weeks after

inifiafing data collecfion, a total of 312 quesfionnaires were processed, and the

data were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis.

134
 Descriptive stafistics were ufilized during the preliminary assessment.

Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated to examine internal consistency

for self-confidence in dressing, self-monitoring, perceived importance of

clothing, and job safisfaction scales. Canonical correlation was also ufilized to

assess overall relafionships between business jacket design preference and

each hypothesized variable.

Statistical tests were calculated using statistical procedures of

SAS/STAT®. Repeated measures analysis of variance with an unstructured

covariance matrix was utilized for hypotheses testing. In the case an

unstructured covariance matrix could not provide esfimates, compound

symmetry covariance matrix was used. Least Squares Means were compared

when significance was detected for two factor interaction terms.

Summary of the Findings

Profile of the Respondents

1. Respondents were working women who ranged in age from 22 to 65

with a mean age of 44 (SD = 9.63), were married (77.4%), had

children (78.9%), had 2 to 4 family members (78.1%), and

contributed to at least 50% of household income (61.5%).

2. Approximately half of the respondents (46.7%) had a bachelor's

degree or higher. The respondents worked full-time (81.4%), had a

professional job (75.9%), and were career-oriented (77.2%).

135
3. Respondents wore business jackets to work 2-3 times a week on

average and had approximately 10 jackets in the closet on average.

4. The majority (76.0%) wore jackets during winter season most

frequently. The respondents wore business japkets with either a

skirt (54.3%), or pants (41.5%).

5. The majority purchased business jackets separately as opposed to

a suit (61%) and preferred department stores for purchasing

professional apparel (70.8%). Less than half of the respondents

paid by cash, check, or bank credit card (44.5%). A large

percentage of the respondents (84%) spent less than 20% of the

total household income on professional apparel annually.

6. The majority (ranging from 69.1% to 97.8%) of the respondents

exhibited high self-confidence in dressing, self-monitoring, and

perceived importance of clothing. More than half of the subjects

strongly agreed that they try to make a good impression by their

appearance (56.2%), and noticed the inappropriateness of women's

attire in business situafions (52.8%). The majority (63.4%) indicated

that it is especially important for those dealing with the public or

clients to portray a professional appearance.

7. The majority of the respondents interacted with the public or clients

in face-to-face situafions in their work (78.5%), and interacted with

their superiors in face-to-face situations in their work (83%). The

average number of customers encountered daily at work was 55

136
 (SD - 203.59), while the average number of colleagues

encountered daily at work was 19 (SD = 123.95).

8. More than half (57.5%) of the respondents indicated a relatively high

degree of an unwritten but expected dress code for professional

dressing at work.

9. The average size of thefirmfor which the respondents worked was

"Medium" (M = 2.1, SD = 0.87), and the respondents indicated a

moderate level of conservativeness at work (M = 4.4, SD = 1.6).

10. The average male to female ratio at work was 38.5% (male) to

61.4% (female). The average length in current job (M = 8.87,

SD = 7.84) and career (M = 8.3, SD = 7.32) was approximately 8 to

9 years.

11. The older and larger respondents exhibited a relatively high

preference for jacket design #21220 (tunic level length, pin-striped

pattern, loosely-fitted silhouette, above bust neckline, and no lapel

collar style). The same respondents exhibited a relafively low

preference for jacket design #22011 (tunic length, solid,fitted,below

bust neckline, and notched collar style), #00000 (short length, plaid

pattern,fittedsilhouette, waist deep neckline drop, and no lapel

collar style), #02212 (short length, solid pattern,

loosely-fitted silhouette, below bust neckline, and shawl collar), and

#02122 (short length, solid pattern, semi-fitted silhouette, above

bust neckline, and shawl collar).

137
 12. The respondents had an average height of 5'4" (SD = 1.45) and an

average weight of 154.9 lbs (SD = 36.69). Approximately half of the

respondents (46.4%) had a medium-sized body frame. The most

purchased garment size category was misses (44.5%), followed by

petite (27.5%) and women's (20.4%). The average dress size

purchase was 12 (SD = 5.57).

13. More than half of the respondents had brown hair (56.6%), followed

by blonde (24.9%). Approximately half of the respondents had

brown eyes (47.3%), followed by blue (29.5%) and green (20.8%).

14. Approximately twenty-five percent of the respondents had a

triangularfiguretype (24.7%), followed by an ideal type (17.5%),

rounded type (16.0%), and hourglass type (11.0%).

Hypotheses Testing

1. With regard to the impact of design attributes on consumer design

preference, all of the variables (jacket length, pattern, silhouette,

neckline drop, and collar styles) were found to be significant. In

addifion, six interacfions were found to be significant: jacket length

and pattern, jacket length and collar style, jacket pattern and

silhouette, jacket pattern and neckline drop, jacket silhouette and

collar style, jacket neckline drop and collar.

2. On testing the impact of personal characterisfics on business jacket

design preference, none of the personal characteristics were

138
 significant. However, three interactions were found to be significant:

age and jacket pattern, age and jacket silhouette, and ethnicity and

jacket length.

3. Regarding the impact of psycho-social characterisfics on business

jacket design preference, ability to modify self-presentafion and

overall self-monitoring were found to be significant. The significant

interacfions were: self-monitoring and jacket collar style, and ability

to modify self-presentation and jacket collar.

4. No significant impact of job-specific-situafional characterisfics on

business jacket design preference was detected. None of the

job-specific-situational characterisfics were found to be significant.

In addition, no interaction term was found to be significant.

5. With regard to the impact of physical characterisfics on business

jacket design preference, figure type only was found to be

significant. The interacfions between figure type and jacket

silhouette, figure type and jacket neckline drop, and figure type and

jacket collar style were also found to be significant.

Conclusions and Implicafions

Based on the analyses of data andfindings,the following conclusions

are appropriate.

1. Design attributes affect consumer preferences. In addition, one

design element within a jacket style impacts other design elements.

139
 This supports thefindingsby other researchers (Eckman, 1992;

Holbrook & Dixon, 1985; Sproles. 1981b; Wagner, 1990).

2. Although the present study did notfindthat any personal

characteristic, by itself, impacted design preference, the interaction

between some of the design elements and two personal

characterisfics, age and ethnicity, were significant. These

interactions support the nofions made by Behling (1985-86) and

Fiore and KimIe (1997). Consumer aesthetic evaluation of apparel

results from the interrelafionships among design elements and

consumer personal characteristics, suggesting that consumer

subjectivity in apparel evaluafion plays an important role. In addition

consumers evaluate each design element separately. Single factors

in design draw a consumer's preference, not the design as a whole.

In addifion, as women age, they prefer more loosely-fitted silhouette.

This may be due to changes in body structure, as well as changes in

lifestyle. The fact that Asian women prefer tunic length styles may

reflect a preference for garments that reflect the tunic length

historical costume of many Asian cultures.

3. Empirical studies (Cassill & Drake, 1987; Forsythe, Bufier, & Kim,

1991; Rabolt & Drake, 1984-85, Shim & Drake, 1988; Sproles,

1979) suggest that adopter motivafion or psychological identity

(e.g., self-confidence in dressing, perceived importance of clothing,

career orientafion) and social forces (implicit dress code, visibility to

140
 superiors and public, length of fime In career, corporate culture)

influence consumer evaluation and selection of apparel. The

present study failed tofindsignificant evidence to support this

nofion. Self-monitoring in general and ability to modify

self-presentafion were the only two variables found to be significant.

However, a relatively low F rafio and high p-value suggest further

Investigation needs to follow.

4. Figure type, one of the consumer physical characterisfics, and its

interacfion with some of the design elements, was found to be

significant with a relatively low F ratio and high p-value. This also

suggests that consumers evaluate each design element separately

and subjectively. They are particularly concerned with how design

elements affect the appearance of their figures. The respondents

with a diamond shapedfigurepreferred loosely-fitted silhouettes.

This may be due to the fact that thefittedand semi-fitted jacket does

not fit the diamond shapedfiguretype well.

5. Although there was no significance found regarding the impact of

job-specific-situafional characterisfics on working women's design

preference, overall the hypothesized model has value in predicfing

consumer design preference. Therefore, the proposed research

model can be used to explain consumer design preference in

general.

141
 Recommendations for Further Research

This study extended the research in the area of consumer aesthetic

evaluation process and preference formation process. Significant results were

found through hypotheses tesfing. Further research could:

1. replicate a study of similar design with various ethnic groups, Asians

or Hispanic in particular. Thefindingsmight provide more detailed

informafion to be used for exploring marketing opportunities for U.S.

manufacturers and retailers.

2. replicate a study of similar design with subjects who have a

nonprofessional occupafion. The results could show similarities and

differences between professional and nonprofessional groups that

may be used for fashion markefing.

3. replicate a study of similar design including color in visual sfimuli.

The current study had to drop color from the study due to infinite

variability in color and extremely high cost in reproducfion. Color

may be a design variable that significantly impact consumer

aesthefic evaluafion of apparel.

4. replicate a study of similar design by obtaining a subject list with

e-mail addresses, and collect data through e-mail or by posting on a

web site to reduce cost of reproduction.

142
 REFERENCES

Abdel-Ghany, M., & Foster, A. (1982). Impact of income and wife's education
on family consumpfion expenditures. Journal of Consumer Studies and
Home Economics. 6. 21-28.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Performance and safisfacfion in an industrial

salesforce: An examinafion of their antecedents and simultaneity.
Journal of Markefing. 44 (spring), 65-77.

Bartos, R. (1976, May-June). Insight in selling the working women.

Marketing Times. 23. 3-7.

Bartos, R. (1977). The moving target: The impact of women's employment

on consumer behavior. Journal of Markefing. 41. 46-54.

Bartos, R. (1982). The moving target: What every market should know
about women. New York: The Free Press.

Baumgarten, S. A. (1975). The innovative communicator in the diffusion

process. Journal of Markefing Research. 12 (February), 12-18.

Bell, S. S., Holbrook, M. B., & Solomon, M. R. (1991). Combining esthetic

and social value to explain preferences for product styles with the
incorporafion of personality and ensemble effects. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality. 6(6). 243-274.

Bellante, D., & Foster, A. (1984). Working wives and expenditures on

Services. Journal of Consumer Research. 11(2). 700-707.

Bixler, S. (1997). The new professional image. Holbrook, MA: Adams Media
Corporation.

Blau, F. D., & Ferber, M. A. (1991). Career plans and expectafions of young
women and men: The earnings gap and labor force participation.
Journal of Human Resources. 26. 581-607.

Braun, H. (1991). Markefing to minority consumers. Discount Merchandiser.

31(2), 44-46. 74.

Cassill, N., & Drake, M. F. (1987). Employment orientation's influence on

lifestyle and evaluafive criteria for apparel. Home Economics
Research Journal. 16(1). 23-35.

143
Dardis. R., Derrick, F.. & Lehfeld, A. (1981). Clothing demand in the United
States: A cross-sectional analysis. Home Economics Research
Journal. 10. 212-222.

David, M. (1998, January/February). Getting serious about going casual on

the job. Business Horizon. 41. 51-56.

Davis. M. L (1996). Visual design in dress. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prenfice Hall.

Deirdre, M. (1998, January/February). Cross (purpose) dressing. CA

Magazine. 131. 9.

DeLong, M. R. (1968). Analysis of costume visual form. Journal of Home

Economics. 60 (December), 784-788.

DeLong, M. R. (1977). Clothing and aesthetics: Perception of form. Home

Economics Research Journal. 5 (June), 214-224.

DeLong, M. R. (1987). The way we look. Ames, lA: Iowa State University
Press.

Designing for dollars. (1994, November 14). U.S. News & World Report, pp.
103-104, 106-107.

DeWeese, G., & Norton, M. (1991). Impact of married women's employment

on individual household member expenditures for clothing. The Journal
of Consumer Affairs. 25(2). 235-257.

DeWeese, G. (1987). The impact of married women's employment on

household expenditures for clothing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Dickerson, K. (1999). Textiles and apparel in the global economy. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prenfice Hall.

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dillon, L. S. (1980). Business dress for women corporate professionals.

Home Economics Research Journal. 9(2). 124-129.

Domzal, T. J., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Variafions on the pursuit of beauty:

Toward a corporal theory of the body. Psychology & Markefing, 10(6).
495-511.
144
Dondls, D. A. (1983). A primer on visual literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Doran, K. B. (1994). Exploring cultural differences in consumer decision

making: Chinese consumers. In C. Allen & D. R. John (Eds.),
Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 21, pp. 318-322). Prove, UT:
Associafion for Consumer Research.

Dubinsky, A. J.. & Hartley, S. W. (1986). A path-analytic study of a model of

salesperson performance. Journal of Applied Marketing Science.
14(Spring), 36-46.

Eckman, M. (1992). Consumers' aesthetic evaluafion of clothing: The effect

of age, sex, and fashion involvement. Unpublished doctoral
dissertafion. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Eckman, M. (1997). Attractiveness of men's suits: The effect of aesthefic

attributes and consumer characteristics. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal. 15(4). 193-202.

Eckman, M., Damhorst, M. L., & Kadolph, S. J. (1990). Toward a model of

the in-store purchase decision process: Consumer use of criteria for
evaluafing women's apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal.
8(2), 13-22.

Engel, J., Blackwell, R., & Miniard, P. (1993). Consumer Behavior (7*^ed.).
Niles, IL: The Dryden Press.

Ericksen, M. K., & Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Achievement motivation and clothing

preferences of white-collar working women. In M. R. Solomon (Ed.),
The Psychology of Fashion (pp. 357-367). Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.

Ericksen, M. K., & Sirgy, M. G. (1992). Employed females' clothing

preferences, self-image congruence, and career anchorage. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology. 22. 408-422.

Feldman, E. B. (1973). Varieties of visual experiences. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fiore, A. M., & Damhorst, M. L. (1992). Intrinsic cues as predictors of

perceived quality of apparel. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction.
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior. 5. 168-178.

145
Fiore, A. M., & KimIe, P. A. (1997). Understanding aesthetics for the
merchandising and design professional. New York: Fairchild
Publications.

Fiore, A. M., KimIe, P. A., & Moreno, J. M. (1996a). Aesthetics: A

comparison of the state of the art outside and inside thefieldof textiles
and clothing. Part one: Creator and creative process. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal. 14(1). 30-40.

Fiore, A. M., KimIe, P. A., & Moreno, J. M. (1996b). Aesthetics: A

comparison of the state of the art outside and inside thefieldof textiles
and clothing. Part two: Object. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal. 14(2). 97-107.

Fiore, A. M., KimIe, P. A., & Moreno, J. M. (1996c). Aesthetics: A comparison

of the state of the art outside and inside thefieldof textiles and clothing.
Part three: Appreciafion process, appreciator and summary
comparisons. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 14(3). 169-184.

Fisher, C. (1993, February 15). Poll: Hispanics stick to brands. Advertising

Age, 6.

Forsythe, S., Butler, S., & Kim, M. (1991). Fashion adoption: theory and
Pragmatics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 9(4). 8-15.

Forsythe, S., Butler, S., & Schaefer, R. (1990). Surrogate usage in the
acquisition of women's business apparel. Journal of Retailing. 66(4).
446-469.

Forsythe, S. M., Drake, M. F., & Cox, Jr., C. (1984). Dress as an influence on
the perceptions of management characteristics in women. Home
Economics Research Journal. 13(2). 112-121.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research
in education. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Furukawa, T. (1995, October 6). Lighter fragrances, looser import rules

spark sales in Japan. Women's Wear Daily, pp. 1, 4.

Goldin, C D . (1990). Understanding the gender gap: An economic histon/ of

American women. New York: Oxford University Press.

146
Hafstrom, J., & Dunsing, M. (1965). A comparison of economic choices of
one-earner and two-earner families. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 27(3). 409-413.

Hahn, G.. & Shapiro, S. (1966). A catalog and computer program for the
design and analysis of orthogonal asymmetric fractional factorial
designs (Report No. 66-C-165). Schenectady, NY: General Electric
Corporation.

Holbrook, M. B. (1981). The aesthetic imperative in consumer research. In

E. C. Hirschman & M.B. Holbrook (Eds.), Symbolic Consumer
Behavior (pp. 36-37). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Aims, concepts, and methods for the differences in

aesthetic responses to design features. Journal of Consumer
Research. 13. 337-347.

Holbrook, M. B. (1987). What is consumer research? Journal of Consumer

Research. 14(June). 128-132.

Holbrook, M. B. (1994). Axiology, aesthetics, and apparel: Some reflections

on the old school tie. In M. R. Delong & A. M. Fiore (Eds.), Aesthetics
of textiles and clothing: Advancing multidisciplinarv perspectives (pp.
131-141). Monument, Co: International Textiles and Apparel
Association (special publication #7).

Holbrook, M. B., & Dixon, G. (1985). Mapping the market for fashion:
Complementarity In consumer preferences. In M. R. Solomon (Ed.),
The Psychology of Fashion (pp. 109-126). Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath and Company.

Holbrook, M. B. & Schindler, R. M. (1989). Some exploratoryfindingson the

development of musical tastes. Journal of Consumer Research. 16.
119-124.

Horn, M. J., & Gurel, L. M. (1981). The second skin (3rd ed.). Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.

Horridge, P. E., Khan, S.. & Huffman, K. E. (1981). An assessment of

fashion awareness of females based on selected demographic factors.
Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics. 5. 310-310.

Humphrey, C . Klaasen. M.. & Creekmore, A. M. (1971). Clothing and self

concept of adolescents. Journal of Home Economics. 63. 246-250.

147
Jenkins. M.C. (1973). Clothing and textile evaluative criteria: Basis for
benefit segmentation and reflection of undertving values. Dissertafion
Abstracts Internafional, 34, 5547B.

Johnson, B., Nagasawa, R., & Peters, K. (1977). Clothing style differences:
Their effect on impressions of sociability. Home Economics Research
Journal. 6. 58-63.

Johnson, K., Crutsinger, C , & Workman, J. (1994). Can professional women

appear too masculine? Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 12(2).
27-31.

Johnson, K., & Roach-Hlggins. M. (1987a). The influence of physical

attractiveness and dress on campus recruiters' impressions of female
job applicants. Home Economics Research Journal. 16. 87-95.

Johnson, K., & Roach-Hlggins. M. (1987b). Dress and physical

attractiveness of women in job interviews. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal. 5. 1-8.

Joyce, M., & Guilfinan, J. (1978). The professional women: A potenfial

market segment for retailers. Journal of Retailing. 54(2). 59-70.

Kaiser, S. B. (1997). The social psychology of clothing. New York:

Fairchild Publicafions.

Kang, J., & Kim, Y. (1998). Ethnicity and acculturation: Infiuences on Asian
American consumers' purchase decision making for social clothes.
Family and Consumer Sciences Journal. 27(1). 91-117.

Kantrowitz, B., Witherspoon, D., & King, P. (1988, December 5). A fashion
revolt. Newsweek, pp. 60-65.

Kelley, E. A., & Anselmo, D. C. (1977). Career appearance education for

women who aspired to white-collar positions. Home Economics
Research Journal. 6(1). 64-75.

Kelley, E., Blouin, D.. Glee. R., Sweat, S., & Arledge, L (1982). Career
appearance: Perceptions of university students and recruiters
who visit their campuses. Home Economics Research Journal. 10(3).
253-263.

Kersch, E. A. (1984). An invesfigafion of the clothing problems of tall women.

Unpublished master's thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
148
Kose, G. (1984). The psychological investigation of art: Theorefical and
methodological Implications. In W. R. Crozier & A. J. Chapman (Eds.),
Cognitive processes in the perception of art (pp. 27-44). NewYord:
Elsevier Science

Kundel, C. (1976). Clothing practices and preferences of blue-collar workers

and their families. Home Economics Research Journal. 4(4). 225-234.

Lapitsky, M. & Smith, C. (1981). Impact of clothing on impressions of

personal characteristics and writing ability. Home Economics
Research Journal. 9. 327- 335.

Lazer, W., & Smallwood, J. (1977). The changing demographics of women.

Journal of Marketing. 41(3). 14-22.

Lennon, S. J. (1990). Effects of Clothing Attractiveness on Perceptions.

Home Economics Research Journal. 18(4). 303-310.

Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46. 1349-1364.

Littrell, M. A. (1980). Home economists as cross-cultural researchers: A field

study of Ghanaian clothing selecfion. Home Economics Research
Journal. 8. 307-317.

Lucas, G. H., Babakus, E., & Ingram, T. N. (1990). An empirical test of the
job satisfacfion-turnover relafionship: assessing the role of job
performance for retail managers. Journal of Applied Markefing
Science. 18 (summer). 199-208.

Mandelson, D. A. (1996). Women's changing labor-force participafion in the

U.S. In P. J. Dubeck & K. Borman (Eds.), Women and work (pp. 3-7).

McCall, S.H. (1977). Meet the "work wife." Journal of Markefing. 41. 55-65.

Miller, C. (1993, May 10). Researchers say U.S. is more of a bowl than a
Pot. Markefing News, p. 6.

Millman, M. (1980). Such a pretty face: Being fat in America. New York:
W. W. Norton & Co.

Molloy, J. T. (1977). Women's dress for success. New York: Warner Books.

149
Molloy, J. T. (1996). New women's dress for success. New York: Warner
Books.

Morganosky, M. A. (1984). Aesthetic and ufilitarian qualities of clothing: Use

of a multidimensional clothing value model. Home Economics
Research Journal. 13. 12-20.

Morganosky. M. A. (1987). Aesthefic, funcfion, and fashion consumer

values: Relationships to other values and demographics. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 6 (Fall), 15-19.

Morganosky, M. A., & Postlewait, D. S. (1989). Consumers' evaluations of

apparel form, expression, and aesthetic quality. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal. 7(2). 11-15.

NoHA/ood, J. L. (1980). Perspectives on working women: A data book. U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, October, Bulletin 2080.

Peacock, M. (1980, June). Personal style. jVls, 83-90.

Peter, J. P. (1979). Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent

marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research. 16. 6-17.

Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha.

Journal of Consumer Research. 21. 381-391.

Petty, R. E. & Capicoppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of

the effects on attitude of advertising content and context, in Kent B.
Monroe (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research. 8. 20-24. Ann Arbor,
Ml: Association for Consumer Research.

Rabolt, N. J. (1984). Career-oriented women's dress: Input. Influence, and

mediating forces. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.

Rabolt, N. J., & Drake, M. F. (1984-85). Reference person influence on

career women's dress. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 3(2).
11-19.

Rabolt, N. J., & Drake, M. F. (1985). Information sources used by women for
career dressing decisions. In M. R. Solomon (Ed.), The Psychology of
Fashion (pp. 371-385). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Rasband, J. (1994). Fabulous fit New York: Fairchild Publications.

150
Reynolds. F. D., Crask, M. R., & Wells, W. D. (1977). The modern feminine
life style. Journal of Marketing. 41. 38-45.

Rogers. E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.

Sailor, P. J. (1971, December). Perception of line in clothing. Perceptual

and Motor Skills. 33. 987-990.

Schindler, R. M., & Holbrook, M. B. (1993). Critical periods in the

development of men's and women's tastes in personal appearance.
Psychology & Marketing. 10(6). 549-564.

Seitz, V. A. (1992). Your executive image. Holbrook, MA: Bob Adams, Inc.

Shim, S. & Drake, M. F. (1988). Apparel selection by employed women: A

typology of information search pattern. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal. 6(2). 1-9.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 30(4). 526-537.

Solomon, M. (1987). The wardrobe consultant: Exploring the role of a new

retailing partner. Journal of Retailing. 63. 110-127.

Solomon, M. R., & Douglas, S. P. (1985). The female clotheshorse: From

aesthetics to tactics. In M. R. Solomon (Ed.), The Psychology of
Fashion (pp. 387-401). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Sproles, G. B. (1979). Fashion: Consumer behavior toward dress.

Minneapolis: Burgess.

Sproles, G. B. (1981^). Analyzing fashion life cycles: Principles and

perspectives. Journal of Marketing. 45 (Fall), 116-124.

Sproles, G. B. (1981^). The role of aesthetics in fashion-oriented consumer

behavior. In Perspectives of Fashion (pp. 120-127). Minneapolis:
Burgess.

Sproles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L (1986). A methodology for profiling

consumers' decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs.
20(2), 267-279.
Sweat S J ,& Zentner, M. A. (1985). Female appearance presentation:
Gender differences in social attribution and situational choice. Home.
Economics Rp^parch Journal. 14(2). 175-186.
151
Tate. S. L (1989). Inside fashion design (3rd FH ) New York:
HarperCollins Publishers. Inc.

Thompson. J. K. (1986). Larger than life. Psychology Today. 70. 38-39. 42.
44.

Thurston, J., Lennon, S., & Clayton, R. (1990). Influence of age, body type,
fashion, and garment type on women's professional image. Home
Economics Research Journal. 19(2). 139-150.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1997). Statistical Abstract of the United States
(117th ed.) Washington, D.C: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Statistical Abstract of the United States
(118th ed.) Washington, D.C: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Wagner, J., Anderson, C , & Ettenson, R. (1990). Evaluating attractiveness in

apparel design: A comparison of Chinese and American consumers. In
P. E. Horridge (Ed.), ACPTC Proceedings National Meeting (p. 97).
Monument, CO: Association of College Professors of Textiles and
Clothing.

What makes a woman beautiful? (1980, November). Art News. 128-131.

Workman, J., & Johnson, K. (1989a). The role of clothing in perpetuating

ageism. Journal of Home Economics. 81. 11-15.

Workman, J., & Johnson, K. (1989b). The role of clothing in extended

inferences. Home Economics Research Journal. 18(2). 164-169.

Yau, O. (1988). Chinese cultural values: Their dimensions and marketing

implications. European Journal of Marketing. 22(5). 44-57.

Zaichkowsky. J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of

Consumer Research. 12(3). 341-352.

152
 APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

153
 - A 1999 STUDY OF AMERICAN CONSUMERS -

Each time you purchase business attire, you make decisions regarding where to shop,
what Style and color to buy, and how much to spend. This sun/ey is being conducted as
part of an educational endeavor, by research associates at Texas Tech University in
Lubbock, Texas, to better understand female professionals' design preferences and
purchase intentions for business jackets. We would appreciate it if you would take
about 15 minutes to fill out the survey completely.

This questionnaire is not designed to sell you anything or solicit money from you in any
way! You are part of a carefully selected sample of female consumers across the
nation, so that the results accurately represent the opinions of working women. It is very
important that each questionnaire be completed and returned. It is also important that
you, the person to whom the questionnaire is addressed, are the person that completes
the survey.

Participation is voluntary. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The

questionnaire has an identification number for mailing purposes only. This number is
necessary so that we may check your name off the mailing list when the questionnaire
is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire.

There are no right or wrong answers. If you have any questions, please call Lori Yoo at
(806) 795-4579. After you have completed the questionnaire, please return it in the
enclosed, pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope within a week. Thank you very much
for your support of our research project and you can be assured that your input will be
beneficial to all involved.

If you complete and return this survey, and want to be entered in a drawing to win a
$100 money order being given in appreciation to one respondent drawn from entries
post marked on or before August 13, 1999, please complete the enclosed entry card
and return it with the completed questionnaire.

"1 o

Department of Merchandising, Environmental

Design and Consumer Economics
Texas Tech University
Box 41162
Lubbock, Texas 79409-1162

154
Section I. This section contains 18 thumbnail sketches of business jacket designs. Using the scale
provided evaluate the Attractiveness of each jacket. The lower the score the less attractive the
jacket, the higher the score the more attractive the jacket.
NOTE: A skirt is shown in each sketch to illustrate the jacket length. Please do not consider the
skirt design in your evaluation of jacket attractiveness.

EXAMPLE:

Please evaluate the Attractiveness of each jacket design

independent of your body characteristics. Do not attempt to
picture each jacket on your figure. (Circle only One response for
each jacket design.)

Key: 1 = Not Attractive / NA

2 = Somewhat Not Attractive
3 = Neutral / N
4 = Somewhat Attractive
5 = Very Attractive / VA

NA N VA
NA N VA
12 3 4 5
NA N VA 12 3 4 51
NA N VA
12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5

NA N VA NA N VA

12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5
NA N VA NA N VA
12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5

155
 NA N VA
NA N VA
12 3 4 51
NA N VA 12 3 4 5
12 3 4 5

NA N VA

12 3 4 5
NA N VA NA N VA

12 3 4 51 12 3 4 5

NA N VA
NA N VA
12 3 4 5 1
12 3 4 5
NA N VA

12 3 4 51

156
Section II. This section contains 18 thumbnail sketches of business jacket designs. Using the scale
provided assess the probability of your Purchasing each jacket. The lower the score the less
purchase intention, and the higher the score the greater purchase intention.
NOTE: A skirt is shown in each sketch to illustrate the jacket length. Please do not consider the
skirt design in your evaluation of jacket purchase intention.

EXAMPLE:

Please address your Purchase Intention in conjunction with

your body characteristics. Consider how each jacket would look
on your figure. (Circle only One response for each jacket design.)

Key: 1 = Definitely Not Purchase / DNP

2 = Probably Not Purchase
3 = Neutral / N
4 =: Probably Purchase
5 = Definitely Purchase / DP

=% II *

DNP N DP
DNP N DP
112 3 4 5 DNP N DP
DNP N DP 12 3 4 5
12 3 4 5
12 3 4 5

DNP N DP DNP N DP
12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5
DNP N DP
DNP N DP
1 2 3 4 5 I
1 2 3 4 5 1

157
 :
z

1: 1
DNP N DP
DNP N DP
DNP N DP 12 3 4 5
1 2 3 5
12 3 4 5

DNP N DP
DNP N DP
DNP N DP
12 3 4 5
DNP N DP 12 3 4 5
12 3 4 5
12 3 4 5

DNP N DP
DNP N OP 12 3 4 5
12 3 4 5
DNP N DP

12 3 4 5

158
Section III. This section includes statements about business clothing and business situations.
Please place a check mark on the scale to indicate your agreement with each of the following
statements. It is extremelv important that vou answer all the questions in order to interpret the
results.

strongly Strongly

Disagree Agree

01. My self-confidence is high in selecting professional attire • • • • • • •

02. I notice the fit of other women's clothes in business situations

(e.g., tight pants, tight skirts, or loose jackets, etc.) • • • • • • •
03. I notice the inappropriateness of women's attire
in business situations • • • • • • •

04. At work I try to make a good impression by my appearance • • • Q • • •

05. Employees who are low paid should still dress in professional attire • • • • • • •

06. Undoubtedly, I am good at choosing professional attire for work • • • • • • •

07. I remember if a woman appeared professional in a business encounter Q • • • • • •

08. It is especially important for those dealing with the public or
clients to portray a professional appearance Q Q • • • • •

09. When I am uncertain how to dress in a business situation,

I look to the behavior of other women for cues • • • • • • •

10. I feel very confident in putting together a professional appearance • • • • • • •

11. In business situations, I have the ability to alter my behavior if I feel

that something else is called for • • • • • • •

12. When I feel that the professional image I am portraying isn't working,
I can readily change it to something that does • • • • • • •

13 I notice the quality of women's clothing in business situations

• (e.g.. fine fabric). • • • • • • •

14 The wav I dress in business situations changes the way

• people react to me • • • • • • •
15. It is important for me to always portray a professional image at work • • • • • • Q

16. I have found that I can adjust my behavior to meet the

requirements of any business situation I find myself in. • • • • • " Q •
17. Wearing professional clothing helps me gain respect
from others at work a • • • • • •

18. When attending meetings with managers or colleagues, n n n n n n

dressing professionally is important Q • • u u u u

19. I consider my professional clothing a good investment Q ^ • • • • •

20. Employees at all levels in an organization should dress in n n n n Q • Q
professional attire

159
Section IV. The following questions concern business jacket purchase and consumption
patterns. Please fill in the blank or check the appropriate box to indicate your candid response
to each question.
It is extremelv important that vou answer all the questions in order to interpret the results.

01. When you purchase a jacket for business purposes, to what extent do the design factors listed below
influence your purchase decision? Please prioritize the factors from MOST-TO-LEAST influential in your
purchase decision. First, read all five factors listed below, then, in the space provided to the left of each factor,
assign a number from 1 Most Important / Influential to 5 Least Important / Influential) in the order of
importance. Use a number only One time.

Jacket Length
Jacket Silhouette
Fabric Pattern / Color
Jacket Neckline Shape
Jacket Neckline Depth

02. Listed below are factors one might consider when purchasing business jackets. Please place a check mark on
the scale which best reflects your thoughts. Check only One response per item.
Not Important Important Very Important

Brand • • • • • • •
Color • • • • • • •
Latest Fashion • • • • Q • •
Style • • • • • • •
Price • • • • • • •
Attractiveness • • • • • • •
Construction • • • • • • •
Versatility • • • • • • •
Jackets in Wardrobe • • • • • • •
FiberContent • • • • • • •
Fit • • • • • • •
Ease-of-Care • • • • • • •

03. How often do you wear a business jacket to work per week? times per week

04. During which season do you most often wear a business jacket? (Check One)

• Spring • Summer • Fall • Winter

05. How many business jackets do you have in your wardrobe? jackets

Approximately how many of these business jackets do you wear for each season? (Jackets worn in more than
one season should be counted in each season.)
1. Spring jackets 2. Summer jackets 3. Fall jackets 4. Winter jackets

06. What color are the business jackets in your wardrobe? (Check All that apply and specify the Number of
jackets)

a Black a Gray • Navy • Beige • Brown

• Green • Red • White • Other (Please specify)

160
07. When you wear a business jacket, which one of the clothing items below, do you most often wear?
(Check One)

• Dress • Skirt • Pants • Other (Please specify)

08. When you purchase a business jacket, do you most often purchase the jacket as a suit or as a separate?
(Check One)

• 1. Suit • 2. Separate

09. In what type of store do you most often shop for professional apparel? (Check One)

• 1. Specialty Stores • 3. Department Stores • 5. Other (Please specify)

• 2. Discount Stores • 4. Catalogs

10. How do you usually pay for your professional apparel? (Check One)

Q l . Cash or Check • 3. Store or Catalog Card

• 2. Bank Credit Card (Master Card / VISA) • 4. Other (Please specify)

11. What percentage of the total annual household income did you allocate for professional apparel for
yourself last year? (Check One)

• 1.10% or below • 3. 21%-30% • 5. 41%-50% • 7. 61%-70%

• 2. 11% - 20% • 4. 31% - 40% • 6. 51% - 60% • 8. 7 1 % or more

Section V. This section includes statements about work. Please place a check mark on the scale
to indicate your agreement with each of the following statements.
It is extremelv important that vou answer all the questions in order to interpret the results.

strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

01. I interact with the public or clients in face-to-face situations in my work • • • • • • •

02. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with my job • • • • • • •

03. I frequently think of quitting my job • • • • Q • •

04. I interact with my superiors in face-to-face situations in my work • • • • • • •

05. People in my job often think of quitting • Q • • • • •

06. I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in my job • • • • • • •

07. My job offers me a career path that I am pleased with • • • • • • •

08. I feel a sense of pride and accomplishment as a result of

the type of the work I do • • • • • • a

09. I feel there is an unwritten, expected dress code for

professional women in my firm • • • • • • •

10. Most people in this job are very satisfied with the job Q • • • • • a
11. I would advise a friend looking for a new job to take one similar to mine Q • • • Q • Q

161
Section VI. This section includes questions about physical profile. Please fill in the blank or
check the appropriate box to indicate your candid response to each question.
It is extremelv important that vou answer all the questions in order to interpret the results.
01. What is your height? ft in

02. What is your weight? lbs

03. What would you estimate is the size of your general body frame? (Judge on the basis of bone size or wvrist
size) (Check One)

• 1. Petite • 2. Small • 3. Medium • 4. Large • 5. Extra-Large

04. What is your average dress size? (Example: petite size 14 or woman's size 14) (Check One and specify the
Size)

• 1. Petite Size
• 2. Tall Size
• 3. Misses Size
• 4. Women's Size

05. What color is your hair? (Check One)

• 1. Blonde • 2. Brown Q 3. Black Q 4. Red • 5. Other.

06. What color are your eyes? (Check One)

• 1. Brown • 2. Blue • 3. Green • 4. Black • 5. Other.

07. Whrch of the following 8 figure types best describes your torso silhouette? (Check One)

G G G

162
Section VII. This section includes questions about job related information. Please fill in the
blank or check the appropriate box to indicate your candid response to each question.
It is extremelv important that vou answer all the questions in order to interpret the results.

01. How would you rate the size of the firm / corporation you work for? (Check One)

• 1. Small 0 2. Medium • 3. Large • 4. Other (Please specify)

02. How would you rate the corporate culture in terms of conservativeness at your firm / corporation? (Check One)

Not at all conservative ® ® (D ® © © ® Extremely Conservative

03. What is the percentage of male to female employees at your firm / corporation?

% Male : % Female = 100%

04. Approximately how long have you worked for the firm / corporation? • Month(s) • Year(s)

05. Approximately how long have you been in your current career position? • Month(s) •Year(s)

06. What is your occupation?

07. What is your job title?

08. What is your employment status? (Check One)

• 1. Full-time • 2. Part-time • 3. Other (Please specify)

09. Is the work you do "just a job" or is it a "career"? (Check One)

Q 1. Just a job a 2. Career

10. Do you have a specific career objective for the future? (Check One)

• Yes • No

11. Approximately how many customers / clients do you daily encounter at work?.

12. Approximately how many supervisors / colleagues do you daily encounter at work?

Section VIII. This section includes questions about socio-demographic characteristics. Please
fill in the blank or check the appropriate box to indicate your candid response to each question.
(It is extremelv important that vou answer all the questions in order to interpret the results.)

01. What is your age? Years Old

02. What is your marital status? (Check One)

• 1. Single, Never Married • 3. Married • 5. Separated

• 2. Divorced • 4. Widowed • 6. Cohabiting

03. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? (Check One)

• 1. Less than high school • 7. Post-graduate professional training

• 2. Some high school (Law, Medicine, etc)
• 3. High school diploma or equivalent • 8. Some graduate work
• 4. Some college work • 9. Master's degree
a 5. Associate degree • 10. Doctoral degree
• 6. Bachelor's degree • 11. Post doctoral work
• 12. Other (Please specify)

163
04. What is your ethnic background? (Check One)

• 1. Caucasian • 2. African-American • 3. Hispanic • 4. Asian

• 5. Other (Please specify)
05. In which state do you reside?

06. How many individuals live in your household, including children? _Member(s)
07. Do you have children? (Check One)

• Yes • No

If Yes, how many children do you have? Child / Children

What is the age of each child/children? : : :

08. What was your financial contribution in terms of percentage to the total annual household income last year?
(Check One)

• 1.10% or below • 4. 31%-40% • 7. 61%-70% • 10. 91%-100%

• 2.11%-20% • 5. 41%-50% • 8. 71%-80%
• 3. 21%-30% • 6. 51%-60% • 9. 81%-90%

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. PLEASE MAIL THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE SELF-
ADDRESSED, POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 13,1999. IF THE POSTAGE-
PAID, SELF- ADDRESSED ENVELOPE IS MISPLACED, PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
TO:

LORI YOO
5202 BANGOR AVENUE #A302
LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79414

164
 APPENDIX B

PRELIMINARY POSTCARD

165
Dear Consumer:

We are writing to request your participation in a research study designed to

explore consumer business jacket design preferences. Your cooperation will
assist in completing our consumer profile.

In a few days you will receive a survey-booklet in the mail. Directions for
completion will be included in the booklet. Participation will involve about 15
minutes of your time. Your assistance in helping us complete the consumer
study is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lori Yoo
Denise Bean
Shelley Harp

Research Associates
Texas Tech University

Research Associates
Texas Tech University
Dept. ofM.E.D.C.E.
Box 41162
Lubbock, TX 79409-1162

166
 APPENDIX C

MONEY ORDER ENTRY FORM

167
 MONEY ORDER ENTRY FORM

To be eligible for the $100 Money Order drawing, you must

return this entry form with your completed questionnaire. Winners
will be notified by telephone and the money order will be
fon/varded to you by September 17, 1999. Please print the
information below.

Name:

Mailing Address,

Telephone Number £

168
 APPENDIX D

FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD

169
 ATTENTION! ATTENTION!

Recently, a questionnaire seeking information about your business jacket design

preference was mailed to you. Your name was drawn from a random sample of
consumers in the U.S.

If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept ou
sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. Because it has been sent to a small,
but representative sample of consumers, it is extremely important that you b
included in the study if the results are to accurately represent the America
consumer.

Thank you very much for your support of this research project.

Sincerely,

Denise Bean, Shelley Harp, Lori Yoo

Research Associates
Texas Tech University

170